Search Results for: ’

From Roll Call’s article about the WA-08 race between Democratic challenger Darcy Burner and Republican incumbent Dave Reichert, R-Wash.:

Burner said Reichert’s advertising firm, Media Plus, has made what she alleges amounts to an illegal loan of as much as $1 million to buy airtime in this last week before Election Day.

“From my perspective, when they are breaking the law and then use that money to go up on television to say that I don’t have a degree that I did in fact earn, do I think it’s getting nasty? Absolutely. But not on our side,” Burner said. “They will do anything to hold onto this seat, and they don’t care about the law or the truth.”

There’s still (barely) time to throw in one last bit of turkee to help Burner counter this ridiculous and deceptive bit of Seattle Times/RNC/Reichert bullshit. Democrats are hopeful of having a big night in one week, and Republicans are desperate to hang on to WA-08 as their potential losses pile up. Darcy has done as much as anyone to challenge the Bush status quo and having her break their back by defeating Reichert would be incredibly sweet.

I know everyone is probably pretty tapped out, but if you can, go visit Darcy. As we’ve seen, every small contribution adds up, and I’m guessing last minute media purchases are vital as this race goes down to the wire. Don’t mean to be theatrical, but if you’re going to donate one last time to Burner, do it this instant.

An item from Clark County I missed last week while on vacation strikes me as emblematic of the problems facing Republicans up and down the ticket. They’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel in a suburban swing district that traditionally should be full of likely Republican candidates.

It seems the candidate the GOP found to take out Rep. Jim Dunn, R-Vancouver, who was disciplined by Republican leadership for inappropriate comments to a female staffer and subsequently lost in the primary this year, has some issues of his own.

Last Wednesday The Columbian reported that Republican Joseph James, who is on the general election ballot along with Democrat Tim Probst in the 17th LD, is accused by a local couple of improperly listing a payment made to James’ dog boarding business as a contribution to his political campaign. From The Columbian on Oct. 22:

Thomas and Beth Baker boarded their dog at Joseph James’ dog boarding business in Stevenson several times last year, and usually paid by check.

But the last time they used the service, the Camas couple put the $200 fee on a credit card. When their statement came, they were surprised to learn that the payment had gone to an organization called Complete Campaigns, which offers Web-based services to help campaigns track supporters, votes, fund-raising and volunteers.

James, a Republican who is running for an open House seat in the 17th District, paid the San Diego company $311 in credit card processing fees between Dec. 24, 2007, and Jan. 15, 2008, according to state campaign finance records.

On Jan. 2, James’ campaign reported a $200 contribution from Thomas Baker.

Baker said he never intended for his dog care payment to end up in James’ campaign chest.

James did not return calls to his campaign office and mobile phone seeking comment.

I’ve heard of a lot of lowly actions by Republicans, but taking a customer’s money and trying to make it appear as a campaign contribution without the customers’ knowledge is a fascinating twist. How would anyone want this guy voting on a state budget?

This isn’t the first time James has drawn attention to himself for questionable campaign activity. In February Aneurin at Politics is a Blood Sport ran down James’ claims about having an “MBA” from a place called “Almeda” University.

Who’s Almeda University? Almeda, a website with a post office box located in Boise, Idaho, offers online distance learning and confers degrees based on “life experience”. And there’s the slight issue of accreditation, in other words, there is none from any recognizable accreditation organization.

And in August of this year Chris Mulick took a look at some of James’ spurious claims on transportation and apparent gross over-inflation of fundraising totals.

By claiming a $3,000 monthly in-kind contribution for use of personal space as a campaign and a $700 in-kind contribution for use of a personal vehicle the James campaign haul has been bolstered by $41,000.

Mulick also posted some highly entertaining videos James put up on the YouTube, if you wish to click through.

Contrast James as a candidate with Democrat Tim Probst, a former Republican who once worked for the governor of Illinois and is well versed in economic policy. Which party is actually a big tent and which party is attracting talent and leadership? Maybe we once could (sorta kinda) afford to have buffoons like Jim Dunn or Joseph James in office, but with hard times on the horizon we need all the smart people we can get doing the public’s business.

Being a quality candidate or public official, it turns out, requires more than money and pre-fabricated dogma. In the 17th LD you can chalk up another EPIC FAIL for the GOP Party on that score.

It was hard to read this article in the Sunday NYT, particularly this passage

…Democrats, who are within reach of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster in the Senate, would also face high expectations, especially from the party’s more liberal quarters, that could be difficult to meet even with enhanced numbers in the Senate as well as the House. And they would be at risk of overreaching, a tendency that has deeply damaged both parties in similar situations in the past…

and not get nervous that a President “Purple America” Barack Obama might pull a Rep. Frank “One Washington” Chopp and freak out about “overreach.”

And this, dear believers, means the popular Democratic agenda that will likely have swept Obama and a super majority of Democrats into office—universal health care, ending the war in Iraq, repealing the Bush tax cuts, restoring civil liberties,  cap and trade, stem cell research, massive investment in infrastructure, and mandating accurate sex ed—will be sidelined for loads of bipartisan bills. 

And while I’m talking about Democratic underreach, may I suggest one piece of legislation for Rep. Chopp and our local Democrats (and if Chris Gregoire wins, she should get in on this too): Reform the state’s Public Disclosure Commission. And by reform, I mean: Clean house, appoint watch dogs, and rewrite the rules so they’re actually rules instead of murky pseudo rules. 

I actually suggested this prior to last session in the wake of Dino Rossi’s Forward Washington shenanigans, but it didn’t take. So, now that Rossi has laughed off ethics rules again by apparently coordinating fundraising with the  BIAW (illegal), not to mention that the BIAW’s fundraising scheme itself was illegal … and now that Rossi, GOP Attorney General Rob McKenna, and GOP Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland may have gotten illegal campaign loans (and we all know how the PDC is going to rule on that), can the Democrats please prioritize an overhaul of our state’s campaign finance laws next session so that Republicans can’t drive SUVs through them?

I’m at an auditorium in Bellevue Community College. We’re already behind schedule and people are still trickling into the room. There’s a slideshow with Governor Gregoire: There’s her and Obama; there she is with an unidentified family in farm country. There’s a banner “Fighting for Working Families.” Gregoire with children.

I’m at a rally for Governor Gregoire and Darcy Burner. I was hoping to liveblog it but there’s no signal here, so I‘ll just write it up: It’s a rally for Chris and Darcy with our senators and the governors of Kansas and Arizona. All women.

As a feminist, I’m proud that we’ve got such great women in the state, but I’m worried that if Gregoire loses we could have no women in elected executive positions (I know the races for Superintendent of Public Instruction and Lt. Gov have women running, but one is also in a tight race, and the other is an underdog). Of course a candidate’s gender isn’t reason enough to vote for them (and I’m leaning toward the men in those other races).

I’m going to try to capture what’s going on here, but my notes are what I can type and that’s slower than the speakers talk. Any quotes are from my notes, and as good as possible, but not guaranteed to be 100% accurate, I apologize for that.

Judy Clibborn started us off, and after welcoming us to her district let us know that this is the “Chris Gregoire tour for working families. 26 stops over 11 days. She is a tireless worker for us all.” Then after some mention of how close the race is, and how important it is to volunteer, she introduced Matthew Arnold, Darcy Burner’s volunteer coordinator.

As someone who’s volunteered for Darcy’s campaign, he was a familiar face. He’s been great when I’ve been volunteering. The points he made were that “over the last couple of weeks there has been a non-ending stream of press” and that an “alphabet soup of acronyms of people who are going to spend money” on the race. But that it’s ultimately not “people in Washington DC can decide how people in Washington state vote.” That the volunteers, and the voters, will ultimately make the difference.

“This has been a long election cycle. There have been people volunteering for over a year.” Then he made a metaphor about piggy banks: “You put in your knocks, calls, all the effort and the heart and sweat of putting the people in office you believe in. And on election night you cash your piggy bank.” Because of all the work that has been done and will continue to be done, “I know that we’ve got a big piggy bank and in the next 9 days we’re cashing it in!”

Cantwell got up and made the case for Gregoire: that she’s been creating jobs; that what she’s focused her attention, she has got results: jobs and keeping the economy going in the face of the national problems. She kept Hanford cleanup on track and has created clean up jobs and is meeting the Tri-Party Agreement. That Gregoire has invested money into biotech and allowed for stem cell research. And that we’re investing in green collar jobs, she pointed to Al Gore saying that Gregoire is, “showing the rest of the nation we can get off our dependence of foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions.”

Patty Murray was next, she wants “a big enough majority that Maria Cantwell can write the next energy policy.” That sounds like a good enough reason to me to work for 60 in the Senate.

Then some praise for Obama, “are you ready for a President who’ll respect you instead of people on Wall Street? A president who’ll respect the Constitution? Who’ll work to bring our troops home? Who understands your values and make sure the middle class is back to work and strong again?”

When Obama and Biden are in the White House, they’ll support us. And, “we need a Governor who will work with them to make sure our state is strong.” They’ll be able to work together to implement children’s health, work on choice issues, and make the proper investments in infrastructure. We’ll need a governor who’ll work with them.

She mentioned the “don’t let Seattle steal the election” and talked about how important it is to elect people who “respect the whole state” instead of trying to divide us like Rossi.

Then it was on to an introduction of Darcy Burner. “Here in the 8th district we have a tremendous chance to elect a great woman.” She said that while Reichert acts like a moderate when it’s close to election time, “you deserve a Congresswoman who has the value of the voters.” This year, you can “elect a great team to fight for you.”

Darcy spoke, and I realized that it was the first time I’ve seen her live this election cycle. “We are poised on the edge of a tremendous opportunity. All of us have watched as the country go in the wrong direction.” Our economy is going south. “We’ve watched our neighbors and friends sent to war. The Constitution disrespected by the people sworn to uphold it. In 9 days we have an opportunity to change all of that. But I need your help.”

She told a story about leaving for the campaign trail today, and her son said, “‘don’t forget to save the polar bears,’ and I want to be able to look him in the eye, and tell him honestly that we have done everything we could and we are in fact going to save the polar bears.

“But it isn’t enough to have the leaders at the federal level. Washington is doing better than anywhere else. That isn’t a coincidence. We have an unbelievable, fantastic governor.” She has been creating jobs, and bringing people together to solve problems. “We need to do everything we can do to keep her in Olympia for the next 4 years. Give your warmest welcome to Gregoire.”

Gregoire: “Thank you all for coming out. This is our tour for working families. That’s what this election is all about.”

I was most impressed about the way she went after “those negative fear mongering ads.” She talked about the sex predator ads and how they’re “shameless.” She told a story about how she was doing an event and a 3rd grader came up to her and, “asked if it’s safe to go outside.” She concluded, telling the people making those ads, “see what you’ve done.” And that even though they’re spending $7½ million from out of state, “we ought to tell them that Washington State is not for sale.”

She talked about her accomplishments. When she was elected 4 years ago, we had the highest unemployment. But Washington has created 250,000 new jobs when other states have lost jobs. How the Pew institute has ranked Washington as one of the top three best managed states in America. And how we’ve done better than most states avoiding the worst of the economic downturn: We’re “one of the few states with a surplus” she reminded us.

Then some swipes at Rossi. “We stand proudly for the families that are living on the minimum wage.” How Rossi would try to get rid of the estate tax on less than half of the top 1 percent of Washingtonians. How at yacht club (of all places!), he said he would lower unemployment benefits. “He does not share our values. We are working men and women in this state, and we need a governor who shares our values.”

She also talked about what she’s done in education and health care. Rossi wants to deregulate health care “how well did it work on Wall Street?” She talked about our “14 year low in the crime rate. Washington State Patrol has been named the best law enforcement in America.” Yet Rossi is going after her on crime?

We’re going to be a leader on Global Warming. We’re going to create a green economy. Washington is leading the way. “Puget Sound is going to be swimable fishable, and digable.”

“We may not have 7½ million dollars, but we have you. That’s what this election is about. No governor knows more than me that every vote counts.”

She concluded that she’s been serious and tough, and that she has been a fighter who, “fought breast cancer, fought the federal government when they wouldn’t support health care for children, when they wouldn’t clean up Hanford, I have fought big tobacco, and Enron. I’m going to fight for you and your children and for health care and quality education.” This got the crowd riled up.

She then said how much she’s liked working with Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius.

Napolitano spoke first of the visiting governors, and after some jabs at McCain (my favorite “I am from Arizona, so I want to clear up some things: Most of us own 1 house.”) she got to why she’s here:

“I’ve been all over the country, and this economic downturn is real and it’s in every state.” Governor Gregoire has put this state on as firm a footing as you can have in the national meltdown, and she’ll continue to do this. But we also have to think long term and to educate the next generations: “education creates the jobs, that’s an economic program.”

She told us to take advantage of this “rare opportunity to re-elect someone like Gregoire, elect Darcy to House of Representatives, and elect Barrack Obama.”

Kathleen Sebelius made a point that we will get change from electing Obama, and having people like Gregoire ready to enact the change at the state level. “The only way Obama can truly be a good president is if he has a ground team.”

All in all, a good event. A full audience, and great energy from our candidates. One of the goals was to get people to help canvas and make phone calls (the last deposits in that piggy bank, to use Matthew’s metaphor). So I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that you can still volunteer with Darcy Burner or Governor Gregoire.

As much as we’re all appalled and disgusted by what McCain campaign worker Ashley Todd did this week in Pittsburgh, she’s not a criminal. She’s a person who likely has some mental health problems. We really need to get over this notion that everyone who offends us or does something that we find morally reprehensible needs to go to jail. No one was victimized here. No one had any money or property stolen from them. At worst, write her a fine to cover the administrative costs of having the police pursue the case and suggest a good mental health facility for her to check herself into. We’ve got too many goddamn people in jail already in this country.

UPDATE: Richard Pope in the comments provides some excellent perspective:

Isn’t $50,000 bail a little bit excessive for a misdemeanor? If Ashley Todd had really been attacked in the manner that she falsely claimed, I wonder whether the hypothetical attacker would have received anywhere near that amount of bail.

For example, a man “charged with robbery, burglary, giving false identification to law enforcement, loitering and prowling at night, simple assault, making terroristic threats, theft, receiving stolen property and false imprisonment” in Pittsburgh (Allegheny County, Pennsylvania) was only held on $10,000 bail.

From BrianK in the comment threads:

I am an accountant. As part of my licensing and for other reasons, I am occasionally asked if I have an accounting degree. I always reply that I do have the appropriate accounting degree necessary to do my job.

I attended Portland State University when I earned this degree. PSU does not offer a degree in Accounting. Looking at my printed hunk of parchment, I see that I really have a degree in Business Administration, with a concentration in Accounting. Because that’s what they call it at that institution.

I don’t believe that I am misrepresenting myself to anyone.

Really, how hard is that for Emily Heffter and her editors at the Seattle Times to understand?  Darcy Burner has a degree in computer science and economics, and Harvard’s failure to use the terminology they prefer, doesn’t make it any less so.

I myself have been called a partisan hack, and maybe it’s true, but the difference is, I’m not the largest newspaper in the state.  I’m not Washington’s self-proclaimed paper of record.  And I’ve never pretended to be impartial, balanced or objective.  No, I’m just a partisan, foul-mouthed, dirty fucking blogger, but with its latest NRCC press release cum front page story, the Times has proven itself to be less credible than even me.

Dave Reichert, Dino Rossi, the BIAW and the WSRP are all busy violating state and federal campaign finance law, and the Times chooses to splash this kind of bullshit semantic hair splitting on their front page?  Really?

Partisan hacks.  That’s what they are, partisan hacks.  And they should be ashamed of themselves.

The big topic of conversation was the seemingly illegal contribution to Rep. Dave Reichert’s campaign by Media Plus. Did Reichert violate the letter of the law, or just the spirit of the law? Are Republicans like Reichert and Rossi ignoring election financing laws, and treating post-elections fines as the cost of doing business? From there, a heady discussion arose about liberalism and conservatism, and what liberals must do about conservatives.

Goldy was joined by Matt Stoller of OpenLeft, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Publisher of the Group News Blog, Jesse Wendel, and Eat The State’s Geov Parrish.

The show is 56:26, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_oct_21_2008.mp3]

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

Exactly a month ago, after the Seattle Times editorial board transparently feigned bipartisanship by endorsing Barack Obama, I wrote:

As expected, the Seattle Times editorial board has endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States, paving the way for endorsements of Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, all the while leaving their vaunted bipartisan principles intact.  At least, in their own minds.

In fact, with the possible exception of the race for Commissioner of Public Lands, I can’t imagine a single additional closely contested statewide or federal race in WA state in which the Times endorses a Democrat.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong.  But I wouldn’t bet on it.

So, how did my predictions turn out?  As of today, the Seattle Times has endorsed Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, while Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark did indeed get the ed board’s nod for Commissioner of Public Lands.  I ran the table.

Of course, the Times will publish meaningless endorsements of Democratic incumbents in the virtually uncontested races for Lt. Governor, Auditor and Insurance Commissioner (nominally Democratic in the case of Owen and Sonntag), but with the exception of Obama and Goldmark, the editors of the self-proclaimed paper of record for one of the bluest cities in America are once again backing a full slate of Republicans for every high profile contested statewide or federal race.

As is their right, I suppose.

But how thoughtful and meaningful are editorial endorsements when they can be so easily predicted a month in advance?

I’d say, not very.

UPDATE:
I want to be clear that I did not attempt to predict the Seattle P-I’s endorsements, because I couldn’t. No doubt the P-I’s ed board tends to lean significantly more liberal than the Times, but they are still media establishment types who overwhelmingly favor incumbents.  And, as naive a notion as it is, the P-I seems to genuinely embrace nonpartisanship as a lofty ideal, whereas the Times merely manipulatively embraces it as useful rhetoric.

Nir Rosen has an amazing account in Rolling Stone of his journey into Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan. Rosen discovers some expected things, for instance, that it’s still a dangerous region where foreigners are not welcome and coalition forces only engage from the air. But he also finds some unexpected things, like that the ranks of the Taliban are not so much the religious fundamentalists that they once were. Their movement is once again driven primarily by nationalism, as was the mujaheddin that drove out the Soviets in the 1980s.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have said they’d send more troops to Afghanistan, but they should also listen to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen:

But Mike Mullen added bluntly that military means alone were no longer sufficient. “We can’t kill our way to victory,” he declared. “Afghanistan doesn’t just need more boots on the ground.” The keys to success, he explained, were “Foreign investment. Alternative crops [to replace poppy cultivation]. Sound governance. The rule of law… No armed force anywhere — no matter how good — can deliver these keys alone.”

This is why I’ve cringed when Afghanistan has come up at the debates. Obama hasn’t even dared to challenge John McCain on whether or not the surge in Iraq worked. The reduction in violence in Iraq came from reaching out to former insurgents, improved tactics on the ground, building walls throughout Baghdad, and the fleeing of millions of Iraqi’s who’ve seen their prospects for a better life dwindle. Having greater numbers of troops was certainly helpful, but it was far from being the main thing that quieted down the insurgency. And Mullen is warning us not to take such a simple-minded approach to Afghanistan, even as John McCain keeps talking about bringing “the surge” there as well. That Obama appears to be the one candidate more willing to listen to Mullen’s advice is just one of the many reason why he’s getting my vote this year.

As part of the new push in Afghanistan, NATO recently authorized coalition forces to target the drug trade more directly by going after traffickers, labs, and drug lords, but leaving the farmers alone. Afghanistan still produces a majority of the world’s heroin which, despite being illegal, accounts for over 50% of the country GDP. And it’s because Taliban forces have provided protection for the industry that they’ve become such a well-funded and well-armed fighting force threatening to topple the coalition-led leadership across the county. Now the coalition will be trying to go after the people who’ve been paying the Taliban:

The alliance is not in the business of crop eradication, [Sec. of Defense Robert] Gates said, “but if we have the opportunity to go after drug lords and … labs — to interrupt this flow of cash to the Taliban — it seems like a legitimate security endeavor.”

Up until now, the only method being used to eliminate the opium crop was to have Afghan-led eradication teams tour the countryside and plow over opium fields. This approach has been totally ineffective. The teams were easily corrupted, often being used by a local drug lord (who would often happen to also be within the government) to eliminate a rival’s crops. Considering that individuals within the Bush Administration and the C.I.A. openly accept that even Hamid Karzai’s brother is involved in the trade, it’s easy to see why trying to enforce this law has been pointless.

Hard-core drug warriors in the Bush Administration and Congress continually pushed for aerial eradication (including Joe Biden, who helped push a bill to allow dangerous toxins to be dumped on Latin American fields). Our NATO allies and the Afghan Government both opposed us. What’s happening now is clearly a different approach, but it’s every bit as pointless. What we’re trying to do is similar to what we’ve been trying to do in Mexico for years. And when you’re dealing with an industry that accounts for half of a nation’s economy, destroying a few labs and killing some of the drug lords is not going to put a dent in the profiteering.

Instead, Taliban forces will shift from guarding the opium fields to guarding both the labs and the drug lords themselves. The more effective the coalition becomes at eliminating the elements of the trade, the more money will be spent for protection. While it seems like a legitimate security endeavor to Bob Gates, it’s actually one that will completely backfire. As with every anti-drug initiative we undertake in our foreign policy, we forget that the source of the money cannot be uprooted by eliminating the supply. As long as the demand for that supply exists, the best we can ever do is move it, as we once moved it in the 1970s from Turkey to Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, was done in part by allowing Turkey to legally grow it).

The foreign policy discussions in the Presidential debates have rarely deviated from the belief that we defeat our enemies across the globe through fear and intimidation. And in Iraq, our attempts in the early stages of the occupation to use the military alone to quell the insurgency just fanned the flames until we got smart and sat down with the leadership in Al-Anbar and other dangerous areas. Human beings tend to react one way or another to overly authoritarian approaches. Some submit, others rebel. How much of each group there ends up being tends to rely on whether the authority is trusted. In Iraq, we’ve gotten to a point where the vast majority of Iraqis are never going to see us as legitimate occupiers in their nation. It’s possible to keep a rebellious population under wraps if you have the resources, but it doesn’t provide security in the way that the proponents of that policy hope for. Israel has been lost in this psychological quagmire for decades when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza.

In Afghanistan, our unwillingness to dial back our air offensives, which even Hamid Karzai has questioned, is only part of why we’re losing ground there. It’s also because we believe that the drug trade is a form of defiance in much the same way that refusing to accept the coalition’s right to be there and rebuild the country is a form of defiance. It’s not.

The case of Bashir Noorzai is a good indication of how this misunderstanding will only make matters worse there. Noorzai was a wealthy drug lord who came to New York in the hopes of working with Americans to improve the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. It was all a ruse. He was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now the strategy is to go after these guys all over Afghanistan. But people like Bashir Noorzai don’t break the law because they hate us or because they support the Taliban. They break the law because it allows them to be rich and powerful. Our decision to go after a heroin trade that we will never be able to stamp out aligns those whose motivation is profit and power with those whose motivation is to get the foreigners out of their country. This will just accelerate the defeat of Karzai’s fragile regime. We are hooked on a bad policy that just gets exponentially worse as we ignore the real roots of the drug trade and blame those trying to profit from it. While I’m eager to vote for Barack Obama in two weeks, I worry that this mess could eventually be his undoing.

The Columbian newspaper, which in 2004 endorsed George W. Bush, has endorsed Barack Obama.

But as we examined leadership qualities of both men, we saw Obama’s massive strides in uniting his own Democratic party, even reaching beyond his party to speak to all Americans. McCain, in stark contrast, continues to slog through a fractious Republican Party that often is his worst enemy.

It takes strong leadership skills to enlist record numbers of volunteers and to continually explore new heights in the polls, as Obama methodically demonstrates.

As for judgment, Obama chose a running mate who neither hurt him in the polls nor diverted the spotlight from the main man on the ticket. McCain’s choice has done both. McCain tries to masquerade this recklessness as the virtue of a maverick. Would he use that same recklessness in appointing Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members? Which candidate in recent weeks has shown a presidential demeanor? Which could best restore worldwide respect for the U.S.? Which man has tried to soothe — not stoke — rancor in the homestretch of this campaign? Clearly, that man is Obama.

Wow. This endorsement will make the righties howl, if they have any howling left in them.

It’s been a pretty big day for Obama in newspaper-endorsement land, for what it’s worth. From Editor and Publisher:

The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, picking up 16 more papers in the past day, including the giant Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday afternoon (see separate story), and the Denver Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Salt Lake Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times tonight.

This brings his lead over McCain-Palin by this measure to over 3-1 so far, at 56-16, including most of the major papers that have decided so far. In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 220 to 205.

The readership of the 53 newspapers backing Obama now stands at well over 7 million. He gained two biggies yesterday in The Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle, and today picked up the Modesto Bee in addition to the larger papers.

An interesting footnote: the Chicago Tribune has never endorsed a Democrat for president. Ever. Something about that Abraham Lincoln guy I think.

Is the political re-alignment of the United States very nearly complete? If you look at the maps Darryl has posted below, it would seem that way. The Republican’s Southern Strategy of 1968 has come to its final and logical conclusion, confining the GOP Party to the South and states that are rather southern in culture. (This isn’t my thinking, it’s put forth by none other than the mastermind of the Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, in his book “American Theocracy.”)

It would be nice if we get past our history some day, but the racist incidents and histrionics we are currently enduring in this campaign show we still have a ways to go. I know it’s going out on a limb to try to speak for most Americans, but you have to be pretty tone deaf not to pick up on the genuine longing for a leader who will do a good job and get this country working on the severe challenges we face.

After a brief hiatus, the Podcast is back—and with a special guest.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels starts the conicnversation on Seattle “inside baseball ” politics Sound Transit’s Prop. 1 ballot measure and mass transportation. The conversation then turns to the piles and piles of money dumped (sometimes illegally) into in the Washington state gubernatorial race. Will Rossi and surrogates succeeded in unifying the haters? And why hasn’t the BIAW been enjoined from spending more money on the race? Goldy laments the lack of editorial outrage from the traditional media over flagrant violations of election financing laws. The panel chit-chats about other races, like the presidential race and the Burner–Reichert race. Goldy, in response to the PI’s endorsement of Reichert, offers the proposition that the Seattle media establishment suffers from mediocrity. With two journalists on the panel, the comment triggers something of a group therapy session….

Goldy was joined by Chairman of the Sound Transit Board of Directors and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Publisher of the Group News Blog, Jesse Wendel, HorsesAss reporter Josh Feit , and Seattle blogging pioneer N in Seattle.

The show is 65:16, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_oct_14_2008.mp3]

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

Whenever we pass a ballot measure lowering taxes or limiting government in some way, or reject a measure proposing the reverse, the wise old sages of our media and political establishment always caution that we must follow “the will of the people.”  Yet I have noticed a curious pattern to Dino Rossi, who criticizes Gov. Gregoire for raising the gas tax, advocates for reducing the minimum wage and eliminating the estate tax, and has voted to defund initiatives raising teacher pay and reducing class size… all actions contrary to the will of the people as expressed at the polls.

I-920: Rejected, 38-62
This measure would repeal Washington’s state laws imposing tax, currently dedicated for the education legacy trust fund, on transfers of estates of persons dying on or after the effective date of this measure.

I-912: Rejected, 45-55
Initiative Measure No. 912 concerns motor vehicle fuel taxes. This measure would repeal motor vehicle fuel tax increases of 3 cents in 2005 and 2006, 2 cents in 2007, and 1.5 cents per gallon in 2008, enacted in 2005 for transportation purposes. Should this measure be enacted into law?

I-728: Approved, 72-28
Shall school districts reduce class sizes, extend learning programs, expand teacher training, and construct facilities, funded by lottery proceeds, existing property taxes, and budget reserves?

I-732: Approved, 63-37
Shall public school teachers, other school district employees, and certain employees of community and technical colleges receive annual cost-of-living salary adjustments, to begin in 2001-2002?

I-688: Approved, 66-34
Shall the state minimum wage be increased from $4.90 to $5.70 in 1999 and to $6.50 in 2000, and afterwards be annually adjusted for inflation?

And Rossi’s disregard for the will of the people doesn’t end there, with the candidate promising to build an Alaska Way tunnel that Seattle voters rejected by 70-30 margin, while constantly attacking Gov. Gregoire for failing to build a new Sonics arena that 74% of voters rejected at the polls.  And that’s just off the top of my head.

Huh.  If that’s the way Rossi honors the will of the people while running for office, imagine how much respect he’ll show us once he’s in it.

It’s tomorrow in Europe!

The Chancellor will move to take control of the Royal Bank of Scotland today by injecting £20 billion of taxpayers’ money.

The Government is also expected to take over HBOS in the most dramatic extension of state ownership in the British economy since the war. The bank’s rescue takeover by Lloyds TSB appeared to be on the brink of collapse last night.

As governments around the world scramble to prevent the collapse of the global financial system, Alistair Darling will unveil plans for a £40 billion “recapitalisation” of the banking sector.

I’m going to need a chardonnay sugar scrub. You’re taking a bath but the AIG folks already took theirs– in white wine.

(Props to Eschaton for the first link.)