by Jon DeVore — ,
Palin countered with a smile, “Say it ain’t so, Joe. There you go again, pointing backwards again. You prefaced your whole comment with the Bush administration,” She argued that Americans now need to “look forward.”
Stepping up the Republican ticket’s attacks on Senator Barack Obama, Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday seized on a report about Mr. Obama’s relationship with a former 1960s radical to accuse him of “palling around with terrorists.”
by Goldy — ,
You read it here first, the story HA broke about the Washington State Republican Party’s illegal spending on behalf of Dino Rossi, and while the allegations were pooh-poohed at the time by the usual Rossi apologists, WA State Attorney General was left with no choice but to bring suit against his own party and former top aide, WSRP chair Luke Esser.
The Republicans spent “exempt” funds, for which there are no campaign contribution limits, on “non-exempt” activities, for which there are strict contribution limits, essentially laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal contributions on behalf of Rossi and his wealthy patrons like Rufus Lumry and Skip Rowley. And as I wrote at the time, the charges were “pretty cut and dry“:
This isn’t rocket science. It’s Campaign Finance 101. All the political candidates, consultants, committees and parties know damn well what is or is not allowed. And yet the WSRP chose to blatantly violate campaign expenditure laws that have been in place for the past 16 years.
The question now is not whether the WSRP will be penalized, but rather, will they be penalized enough to discourage future such violations, and whether the court will be willing to issue an injunction barring similar activities between now and the election. It appears that Rossi, the WSRP and the BIAW are willing to do whatever it takes to win this election, and have made the crass calculation that a Rossi victory is well worth any potential penalty, as long as it is incurred after the fact.
And as long as our media continues to withhold moral judgment of an obviously unethical and illegal strategy until the final court decision is issued months hence, then Rossi and his surrogates will have calculated correctly that crime does indeed pay.
by Darryl — ,
Tuesday morning came and the world had survived the bail-out bust. So Goldy and friends turn to who really won the debate. Was it the cool and presidential guy or was it the snarling Pekingese guy averting his eyes? Next the panel turns to Dino Rossi, the BIAW and the new Buildergate scandal. The former Washington state Secretary of Transportation comments on Rossi’s Fantasy Transportation Plan™, the gubernatorial race, and the new Traffic Congestion Initiative (a.k.a. Lyin’ Eyman’s Initiative 985). All this and more….
Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, former Washington State Secretary of Transportation and anti-I-985 activist, Douglas McDonald, initiative specialist Laura McClintock of McClintock Consulting, and HorsesAss and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard .
The show is 55:34, and is available here as an MP3:
[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_sep_30_2008.mp3][Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]
by Goldy — ,
The Seattle Times has a front page article on Darcy Burner and her ties to “liberal bloggers” like me, and while I have no argument with the piece itself, I wish reporter Emily Heffter had managed to get a hold of me. (We played telephone tag last week, but never connected.)
One of the main points I would have emphasized to Hefter is that this popular notion that the netroots represent some sort of radical-left fringe, is nothing more than a Republican meme that has been eagerly embraced by old media stalwarts who understandably fear the very real threat we bloggers pose to the media and political establishment.
Sure, there’s a fringe element to the netroots, but then everything (except perhaps, a black hole) includes a fringe, and as inclusive as we try to be there are often times when pragmatists like me roll our eyes or pull out our hair at the counterproductive and shortsighted antics of our own wacky left. (And yes, personally, I am nothing if not a political pragmatist, a self-described “1970’s centrist” who, while occasionally radical in my methods and my writing style, is far from revolutionary when it comes to policy.) Reichert would point toward Darcy’s mere attendance at Netroots Nation as evidence that she’ll do our “bidding” instead of that of 8th CD voters, but in embracing this classic Rovian divide and conquer strategy, who exactly is Reichert branding as “the other”? As I reported from Austin back in July, we’re not exactly the “dirty fucking hippies” we’ve been made out to be:
I had planned to get to bed relatively early last night, but somehow found myself at 1:30 AM, sitting in an IHOP with Darcy Burner and a bunch of veterans. Vote Vets co-founder and chairman Jon Soltz sat across the table, passionately detailing the Veteran Administration’s many bureaucratic nightmares as he relentlessly made his way through an enormous, whipped cream topped stack of chocolate chip pancakes. On his own unexpected politicization Soltz described heading to Iraq a true believer, only to have reality—political, military and otherwise—rip the veil from his eyes. “It was like learning that your parents are not really your parents,” Soltz explained as he tried to relate the sense of betrayal that accompanied his own disillusionment.
Perhaps the biggest surprise for those who don’t know squat about the liberal blogosphere might be that while 20-year-old slackers in bathrobes are in short supply here at Netroots Nation, veterans and military personnel are out in full force. At last night’s keynote, Gen. Wes Clark called out various groups one by one to stand up and be acknowledged… teachers, medical professionals, candidates, first responders, social workers, etc…. but by far the largest group in attendance were the veterans, and it was for them that the crowd reserved its loudest and longest round of applause.
It is an inside netroots joke that we sometimes refer to ourselves as “dirty fucking hippies,” the inherent punchline being that this description couldn’t be further from the truth. If we are radicals, we are the radicalized middle, a segment of the population historically loathe to forsake economic security for the sake of a mere cause, yet somehow provoked into producing a populist uprising. That veterans like Soltz and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga provide two of our most outspoken voices should come as no surprise from a broad movement that draws support from nearly every corner of American life.
For those who hope or imagine that Darcy’s close connections with the netroots will ultimately prove to hurt her standing with her district’s suburban voters, well, you should have been at IHOP last night, where Darcy was literally embraced by veterans who trust that she will deliver the kind of leadership, respect and support that they deserve. Yet more evidence that we are in fact a netroots nation.
I’ve watched Darcy hugged by bleary-eyed veterans at 2AM, not because they believe she will do their “bidding,” but because they know that as a congresswoman she will always be there to listen to their concerns, and then do the right thing. If that’s the sort of embrace that’s supposed to alienate Darcy from 8th CD voters, then I guess our critics are right, and “liberal” bloggers like me really don’t know the district.
by Goldy — ,
Documents released today reveal that Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi was not only aware of the Building Industry Association of Washington’s (BIAW) illegal fundraising activities, but that he actively solicited funds on their behalf from at least one organization, the Master Builder’s Association (MBA). According to a summary of events posted by attorney Knoll Lowney:
The MBA was one of the groups solicited for a donation. On April 30, 2007, BIAW President Daimon Doyle attended the MBA’s Board meeting to solicit a donation to BIAW’s campaign fund, which was considered a “Fund for Rossi,” according to Sam Anderson, the MBA Executive Director. Based upon a formula, MBA was targeted for a donation of over $570,000! The Board decided to table the request until the next meeting three weeks later, expressing concern that most MBA members were democrats and may not appreciate the donation and also about other pressing MBA expenses including building repairs.
When MBA leadership met next on May 21, 2007 at a “Chair Officers Meeting,” the discussion turned to BIAW’s pending request for campaign funds. While discussing the request, all three of the MBA’s top officers reported that they had received calls from Dino Rossi. The one call for which additional detail is provided clearly confirms that Rossi called to support a MBA contribution to the BIAW’s governor’s race war chest. The minutes leave no question that Dino Rossi spoke to this officer about whether and when MBA would give to the BIAW’s governor campaign fund. The officers receiving calls from Rossi were then-MBA President Doug Barnes, First Vice President Joe Schwab, and Second Vice President John Day.
The PDC has already found the BIAW and MBA guilty of multiple “egregious” campaign finance violations, and the Attorney General has subsequently filed suit. And now we learn that not only did Dino Rossi know about the illegal fundraising, he actively solicited money for it.
This is a major scandal… the kind of scandal that could change the entire dynamic of this election.
More coming….
by Josh Feit — ,
After two debates between Governor Chris Gregoire and former state Senator Dino Rossi, the budget has taken center stage. And even though we’re dealing in facts—straight budget numbers—the candidates have two completely different versions of the budget story. It’s a little maddening to listen to.
Gregoire has repeatedly insisted that Rossi doesn’t “understand the values of the people of the state of Washington,” pointing out that Rossi balanced the 2003 budget “on the backs of seniors and children.” And ultimately, she explains, Rossi’s budget created a $2.2 billion deficit anyway—which she had to balance.
Rossi, for his part, has insisted that Gregoire is a “tax and spend liberal” and that her current budget is careening toward a $3.2 billion deficit.
Their respective responses? Rossi claims that he didn’t leave a deficit. Gregoire claims the state currently has a surplus.
I tried to get to the bottom of this disagreement after their first debate. I’m not sure I was successful.
Thank God then, that at their second debate last week, moderator David Postman pulled a question out of the hat (questions at the Association of Washington Business debate last week were submitted by AWB members) that addressed the budgeting stand off.
Postman, in his last gig as chief political correspondent for the Seattle Times before starting his new job in media relations for Vulcan, by the way, quoted a question from AWB member Jim Suits, president of Summit Capital Advisors in Tacoma.
Postman: “Governor Gregoire, you claim you inherited a $2.2 billion deficit from the budget written by Senator Rossi. Senator Rossi you say the budget was balanced and you detect a current problem the same way you did back then. You can’t both be right.”
(Big laugh from the audience)
“Here’s your chance to each take two minutes to try and convince us all you’re right.”
Okay, HA readers, take off your partisan hats. I’m going to print both candidates’ answers verbatim.
Gregoire:
Well thank you for the question. The record is clear. When I came into office in January 2005, Washington state was sitting on a deficit, a $2.2 billion deficit that we had to balance the budget with. Now, how did we do it? Well, we lived within our means, and we also made cuts, and we also had some new revenue.
Now, I noticed my opponent is constantly attacking me for this new revenue. In fact he’s attacking the people of the state of Washington. Because guess what? When it came to the transportation investment, it was voted on by the people of Washington who said, ‘Yes it’s time we got our infrastructure up and growing. We want safety. We want congestion relief. Just invest.’ And that we have done. And we have shown results
The other thing they said is, ‘You know what, we’re also going to agree we need to have an estate tax in this state, making sure that that top one percent are paying for education’ — that’s where the money is dedicated. Sixty two percent of the people of the state of Washington said that’s what they wanted to have done.
So we balanced the budget then, we can balance it again.
But Let me be clear about the rhetoric you’re hearing from my opponent. Today we sit on a surplus. We are one of a handful of states that do. We have literal money in the bank. The projected, and I emphasize the word ‘projected,’ deficit is for 2011. Who knows what happens between now and then, but I’ve already begun curbing spending. About $290 million. For example, I have said we will not be able to move forward with the Family Leave Act. It is suspended. I have made it clear that we are not going to continue to hire, and we are going to cut contracts. We’re going to save money and we’re going to continue because I want to continue to have one of the largest surpluses in the history of the state– which I left this last legislative session with. $850 million. Those are the facts. That’s the truth. I inherited a $2.2 billion deficit. And balanced the budget. And today we have a surplus.
Rossi:
Well, those aren’t the facts and this is the truth
(Audience laughs)
I actually resigned the state senate in December 2003—a year before she took office. And there were a couple more supplemental budgets written, and the incumbent, as AG, lost two lawsuits worth a half a billion dollars. So if there was a projected deficit, I think we need to look in the mirror.
The bottom line, though, is that an hour after she was sworn in as governor, even though during the course of the campaign she said, ‘Now is not the time to raise taxes, oh no we’re not going to raise taxes,’ one hour after she was sworn in, the Seattle Times asked her to repeat her no taxes pledge, [and] she says, ‘Oh well I never really meant no new taxes.’ Then she raised our taxes by $500 million including the death tax, which is chasing entrepreneurs out of our state. We need to eliminate the death tax in the state of Washington.
(Audience applause)
Well, you know what. She’s going to raise your taxes again during the course of this effort, and it’s somewhat ridiculous, since I resigned a year earlier, [that] she blames me for somehow having a deficit.
What ended up happening, by the time the budget was written, money was flying into the coffers of the state. She raised taxes a half a billion dollars on the very same budget she was raising spending by 13 percent. That’s a classic definition of a tax and spend liberal if you ask me. That’s exactly what happened. There’s your truth.
Postman got the last word (and laugh): “Jim, I hope that cleared it up for you.”
I’ll get to my footnotes (and my scorecard) on Gregoire’s and Rossi’s answers in a moment. But first, I checked in with Jim Suits at Summit Capital Advisors in Tacoma yesterday (who told me he’s a strong Rossi supporter) to see if he felt like the candidates answered his question.
Nope.
“They both gave me what we often refer to at the office as an IRS answer,” Suits says, “100% correct and 100% useless.” Suits says that while both candidates are “good at spin,” neither one “got to the heart of the matter.” And for Suits, “the heart of the matter” is: Why did balanced budgets, one balanced by Rossi and one balanced by Gregoire, both slip into deficits?
“What Gregoire said was absolutely right,” Suits says. “Today, September 29, we do not have a deficit. And what Dino Rossi said is also right. We had a balanced budget in 2003. The issue I was trying to get to was, if they’re both right, how could we end up with a deficit?“
Right. And the answer is this: Rossi’s budget wasn’t sustainable and Gregoire’s current budget isn’t sustainable. Democrats will tell you that these budgets aren’t sustainable because we have a revenue problem (thanks Tim Eyman), and we can’t meet all the needs that the public wants us to meet, like paying for quality education. And Republicans will tell you it’s a spending problem—because government is out of control.
The Democratic claim seems tied to a larger issue about Washington’s tax system: Our regressive sales tax doesn’t generate the kind of revenue that a progressive income tax would. It also seems subjective. For example, does everyone think spending $64 million to provide health care to 38,500 uninsured kids, as Gregoire did in 2007, is a state responsibility?
The Republican claim is inaccurate on its face. For example, when Rossi declared his candidacy in October 2007, he staked out his run on this fact: State spending had increased 30 percent under Gregoire.
But his number didn’t address a relevant question to his “tax and spend” equation: Did spending increase because government raised taxes to get more revenues or did spending increase because a robust economy increased state revenues without a tax hike?
Guess what the numbers showed? The 30 percent increase in spending was directly tied to a straight up increase in revenues without a tax hike. Revenues were $22.5 billion in 2003 and they grew by 31 percent to $29.5 billion in 2007.
As to the candidates’ answers to Suits’ question. Here are my footnotes and my scorecard.
1. Gregoire is absolutely right about the half-a-billion tax increase. According to Glenn Kuper at the state budget office, the estate tax—which voters reaffirmed in ’06—accounts for the tax hike. He says it brings in about $100 to $150 million a year. Score 1 for Gregoire.
2. Gregoire is technically right that we don’t have a deficit right now, and in fact, we have a surplus. But come on. The point is: Her program is not sustainable. Minus 1 for Gregoire.
3. The Family Leave Act is suspended? Okay, that sucks. And second: According to Sen. Karen Keiser (D-33, Sea-Tac)—Olympia’s leading advocate for family leave legislation—that’ll save us $72 million in the next biennium, knocking only about 2.2 percent off the projected deficit. Minus 2 for Gregoire.
4. Re: The $850 million surplus (a budget that included a heaping increase the state’s housing trust fund). Savvy budgeting. Plus 1 for Gregoire.
5. Rossi: “We need to eliminate the death tax in the state of Washington.” Okay, all three people Rossi’s promise affects were in the fancy shmancy ballroom that night at the AWB debate. Meanwhile, 62% of the voters said they approve of the tax. Minus 1 for Rossi.
6. Rossi says Gregoire raised taxes by $500 million and spending by 13 percent—making her a classic “tax and spend liberal.” Honestly, I don’t know what 13 percent is a reference to. I emailed and called Rossi’s spokeswoman, Jill Strait, to get some clarity on that. (Rossi typically says Gregoire raised spending by 30 percent. I know 13 and 30 sound the same, but I’ve listened to the tape over and over, and he definitely says thirteen.)
Strait has not responded.
However, for starters, Rossi’s accusation that the $500 million in taxes is somehow odious doesn’t make sense. As Gregoire noted, the voters approved the money. Meanwhile, for his accusation to have any bite, there’s got to be a direct relationship between the $500 million in new revenue and the 13 (30?) percent spending increase. Namely, Rossi needs to show that the tax is burdensome and the spending is frivolous or out of whack. Given that Rossi hasn’t been specific about the fat in the budget, his point doesn’t track. Minus 2 for Rossi.
by Goldy — ,
Chris Mulick has written his last blog post for the Tri-City Herald… or anything else for that matter, announcing that he’s turning in his press credentials tomorrow to take a public information post with the state Senate Democratic caucus.
I can’t point to one single reason that fueled this decision. There are many factors involved in the complex equation.
But certainly, the financial troubles plaguing this industry have created considerable uncertainty. And while the Herald has given me every assurance my job is safe in this bureau it’s unsettling how quickly the unthinkable has become reality in this business. With a young family, I’ve no choice but to risk jumping too soon. I simply can’t risk jumping too late.
Pretty soon the press houses in Olympia will consist of little more than Rich Roesler and Brad Shannon chatting with each other via a couple tin cans and a taut length of string.
Yet another Washington political reporter leaving the business, and only six weeks before one of the most consequential elections in history. This really sucks.
by Goldy — ,
Rep. Jay Inslee was the only Democratic member of WA’s congressional delegation to vote against today’s Wall Street bailout bill. Here is his statement:
WASHINGTON, DC — Today, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) voted against the $700 billion bailout package for troubled American financial markets in what he called “a vote of conscience.”
“The initial plan by Secretary Paulson was completely unacceptable, but the revised package was not much better,” said Inslee. “For all the talk of protecting the taxpayer, there were only limited promises that the taxpayers’ $700 billion investment would be paid back and there were no provisions to help struggling homeowners.”
“If we authorize $700 billion in a bailout for Wall Street, we must ensure – and not just hope – that all the money gets paid back to the American taxpayer. The plan we were presented with did not do that. Also, I saw no real provisions in the revised plan to help stem the real cause of the crisis, which is the collapse in our housing markets. We needed a pro-growth bill to stimulate the economy, and that was not what we got.”
“But now is the time for Congress to come together again and vote on a real, comprehensive plan that will solve the crisis while still protecting the taxpayers and restarting our economic growth. I am prepared to stay here and in session as long as it takes, and I know many of my colleagues in Congress feel the same.”
“The American people deserve better. I could not, with good conscience, vote for the bill presented to me.”
by Jon DeVore — ,
While the country’s attention is understandably focused on the financial sector bailout, the Justice Department has released a report (300 plus page PDF) on the politically motivated firings of nine U.S. attorneys, including John McKay, who was the USA for Western Washington. From the AP via The Seattle Times:
Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a prosecutor Monday to pursue possible criminal charges against Republicans who were involved in the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys.
His move follows the leading recommendation of a Justice Department investigation that harshly criticized Bush administration officials, members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which were seen by many as politically motivated.
Results of the investigation were made public Monday. The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico – among 9 prosecutors who were fired – as the most troubling.
Republican political figures in New Mexico, including Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, had complained about Iglesias’ handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, and that led to his firing, the report said.
That initial AP article doesn’t mention McKay, so a quick look at the report itself is in order. The voluminous report examines the McKay firing in extensive detail, including the demands made by a certain “association” and “an outside group,” in Washington state about the 2004 gubernatorial recount, doubtless referring to the BIAW and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, who were very public in their demands for McKay’s scalp.
Bottom line is that the key administration officials involved (Rove, Miers, Goodling, et al.) have managed to thwart the investigation to this point. From page 267 of today’s DOJ report: (bold added)
In sum, we could not determine whether complaints to the White House about McKay’s handling of the voter fraud allegations stemming from the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election contributed to his placement on the removal list, particularly without interviews of relevant White House officials.
The report castigates the administration in other conclusions regarding McKay’s firing. On page 268 it concludes that alleged concerns about sentencing statistics were not convincing:
In sum, this purported reason appears to be another after-the-fact rationalization for why McKay was included on the removal list. We believe that raising this claim in the briefing to Congress was misleading and cast further doubt on the Department’s credibility in providing the real reasons for the removals of the U.S. Attorneys.
And finally, the section about McKay’s firing reads like a finely-tuned legal document when it comes to whether McKay’s concerns about an information sharing system called LInX played a role. From page 269:
In sum, we believe the evidence suggests that Sampson placed McKay on the list for removal because of his actions in the LInX matter. However, the Department’s various descriptions of why McKay was removed severely undermined its credibility when it tried to explain its actions.
This thing isn’t over from what I can tell.
by Goldy — ,
As Josh reported from Thursday’s gubernatorial debate, Dino Rossi voiced support for repealing Washington’s highest in the nation minimum wage (currently $8.05 an hour), tied to inflation by a citizen’s initiative. Rossi told the Association of Washington Businesses:
”The minimum wage was not meant to be a family wage. It’s meant to be an entry level wage.”
Rarely during this campaign has Rossi made the mistake of publicly stating his position on an issue on which he is so out of step with voters. Don’t get me wrong, Rossi is way out of step on a number of issues, he just refuses to talk about them, and so far our press has been mostly complicit in his silence. But this time he spoke loud and clear, and one would think that reporters might follow up.
It’s encouraging to see the Gregoire campaign quickly respond with an ad; I just hope they continue to hit him on the minimum wage. And harder.
by Jon DeVore — ,
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo notes a Times of London article speculating that we Yanks could be treated to the ultimate hail-mary pass by the McCain campaign, in the form of televised nuptials between Sarah Palin’s daughter and her fiance.
Marshall is correct in warning us to take the British press with a grain of salt, but the televised wedding idea somehow seems so, well, Republican. In other words, cheap, cynical and designed to distract. From the Times of London:
In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.
Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”
If nothing else, such a stunt would seem to be the penultimate test of what might be called the Maher Axiom, a reference to comedian Bill Maher, who has repeatedly expressed his fear that Americans are too stupid to be governed.
by Goldy — ,
The NY Times highlights John McCain’s gambling problem. And it’s a problem on two levels.
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country….
“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.
The Times describes McCain as a “lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table.” No shit, Sherlock.
But I’m curious if our local press, who has silently sat back (when not actively collaborating) and allowed Dino Rossi to slander Gov. Gregoire as “Casino Chris” for rejecting a tribal gaming compact that would have led to a tenfold increase in WA’s gambling industry… I wonder if they’ll ask the Republicans that ironic question about how they feel about the man at the top of their ticket, the “founding father of Indian gaming”…?
Probably not.
by Lee — ,
The Matt Millen era came to an end in Detroit this week, as the Lions’ General Manager was finally canned after a reign of ineptness that made Lions fans feel like the Bush Administration was running their team. Here’s how some of the fans celebrated:
A Detroit radio station gave the Matt Millen era a proper burial Friday, complete with a motorcycle-drawn carriage lugging a “Fire Millen!” sign in a custom-painted Lions casket.
“This is a special moment for us as we say good-bye to a legacy, to a reign of a general manager that brought us frustrations, brought us tears, brought us everything but a trophy,” DJ Spike, from the “Mojo in the Morning” program on WKQI-FM (95.5), said as the funeral lined up at 8 a.m. at Eastern Market.
An $85,000 Harley-Davidson hearse led the procession south on Gratiot Avenue to Ford Field. Inside the gleaming Honolulu blue-and-silver casket was a photograph of Millen’s face on a white, padded, silk pillow.
As about 30 people standing around the casket snickered, Spike invited fans to put mementos in the casket “to be buried forever along with the bad memories of seven years of Matt Millen’s reign.”
Like the Lions, the Seahawks have their bye this week. And also like the Lions, the Seahawks have their own fans who go a little too far (ok, in that case, a lot too far).
by Goldy — ,
Watching last night’s presidential debate at the jam-packed Montlake Ale House (a horde of DFAer’s pushing us DL regulars into the nooks and crannies), there was little question about who won the contest. Both the boisterous crowd and the CNN dial test audience agreed: it was no ass whooping, but Barack Obama came off as knowledgable, likeable and more in touch with average Americans than the often angry and ornery John McCain. And with this being the debate that focused on McCain’s alleged strong suit, foreign policy, that constitutes a win for Obama.
But afterwards, I stopped off at house filled with angry Irishmen, and the reaction was quite different. Strong Democrats all, they were drowning their sorrow in whiskey at what they saw as a pathetically weak performance by Obama, who failed to fight back against McCain’s frequent attacks. Almost as a chorus they complained that if Obama had said “I agree with Sen. McCain” one more time, they would have thrown a bottle at the TV set (and the Irish don’t waste the contents of bottle lightly).
They went into the debate smelling blood after McCain/Palin’s week of disastrous missteps, and they expected Obama to go in for the kill. He didn’t. And their initial and unanimous post-debate reaction was that this was big win for McCain.
Huh. Had we watched the same debate? So I went online to catch the spin and was fascinated to watch the consensus evolve over the next few hours. The early threads on the liberal blogs more closely matched the angry Irishmen than the cheerful DFAers, with many commenters lamenting the same lack of backbone and aggression, a sentiment echoed by a handful of CW pundits who quickly jumped to set the frame by calling the debate for McCain. But it wasn’t long before this spin got spun around, with McCain’s ornery demeanor, his refusal to even look at Obama, let alone make eye contact, and his failure to mention “the middle class” even once beginning to dominate the conversation.
Then the instant polls and focus group results came in, and the notion of an Obama win quickly took hold amongst a majority of the media commentators. By pretty convincing margins both independent and undecided voters consistently gave the edge to Obama, both in his performance and in his positives. Obama talked about issues and connected with voters, whereas McCain appeared “antagonistic”, even “contemptuous,” and while the latter may play well with McCain’s antagonistic and contemptuous Republican base, the folks in the middle… um… not so much.
I don’t know if Obama’s cool and collected debate demeanor is a strategy or simply who he is, but as much as I would personally like to see our candidate punch back as good as he gets—and better—I think last night’s approach ultimately serves him well. Not because voters don’t want to see their presidents appear strong—they most emphatically do—but Obama, perhaps uniquely, must carefully avoid appearing too strong. If you know what I mean….
Ahem… um… as McCain might phrase it, “the point is“… while we may have come a long way toward fulfulling Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, white America doesn’t much like its big, black men to appear aggressive or threatening… and in case you hadn’t noticed, Barack Obama is a big, black man.
Oh sure, on the football field or the basketball court such aggression is accepted and even celebrated, but in the political arena the standards are quite different. Yes, in politics, we still like our big, black men to be orderly and loyal, like Colin Powell, or quiet like Justice Thomas… or even a sweet, dumb, gentle giant like that character in The Long Green Mile.
But threatening? No, Obama can’t afford to come off as threatening, let alone contemptuous of an elderly white man like McCain. So as much as I’m with the brawling Irishmen on what I’d personally like to see from our candidate, I understand I’m not the typical swing voter, and nowhere near the mindset of an undecided independent. No, as much as it may pain me, Obama needs to show McCain respect, even when it is totally unreciprocated, if he is to win the hearts, minds and votes of the uncommitted.
He may not have stirred any passions in his base, but I’m guessing more voters than not came away from the debate with a greater sense of comfort in the notion of Obama as commander in chief, and that’s all he needed to achieve last night.
So I’ve scored this one for Obama. And now I’m going sit back and watch to see if my post-debate analysis is supported by the daily tracking polls.
UPDATE:
John Cole at Balloon Juice aptly sums up the dilemma facing McCain over the emerging too contemptuous to make eye contact narrative:
SNL will probably drive the point home in a skit that will become the dominant narrative tonight, and McCain will become boxed in regarding his behavior in the second debate, much as Gore was unable to be as aggressive as he wanted in the second debate (I remember the running joke was that Gore had been medicated for the second debate). And if McCain does not tone down the contempt, it will simply feed the narrative. Or, if we are really lucky, as someone suggested in another thread, McCain will overcompensate and spend the entire time comically and creepily attempting to make eye contact with Obama (think Al Gore walking across the stage to stand next to Bush, and Bush looking at him as if to think “WTF are you doing?”).
This should be terrifying for the McCain campaign for two reasons. First, the base will not understand it. To them, a sneering, contemptuous jerk is a feature, not a bug. When they try to tone down McCain, it will turn off the diehards. Look at the reaction of the base to Palin’s RNC speech- they LOVED that she was, for all intents and purposes, nothing but an asshole the entire speech. They loved the “zingers” that were written for her. The rest of the country recoiled in horror, and Obama raised ten million the next 48 hours.
UPDATE, UPDATE:
I feel like I’m in pretty good company when James Fallows posts a pretty similar analysis:
Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes — cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.
But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways “safe” and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. (And yes, of course, his being a young black man challenging an older white man complicated everything he did and said, which is why his most wittily aggressive debate performance was against another black man, Alan Keyes, in his 2004 Senate race.) The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more “likeable,” the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. Update: though he doesn’t have to say “John is right…” ever again during this campaign.
by Josh Feit — ,
Around 10 o’clock last night, as Dino Rossi was leaving Blaine, Washington, a rural town 20-minutes north of Bellingham on the border with Canada—where he and Governor Chris Gregoire had just sparred in their second debate—the GOP hopeful stopped at the Yorky’s Grocery, a convenience store attached to an Exxon gas station.
Garner Palomata, the 36-year-old Filipino working behind the counter, recognized Rossi from the candidate’s TV ads. “Hey, you’re the Rossi guys,” Palomata said—a little awed that “someone famous,” with two other guys in suits and ties in tow, had just strolled into his brightly-lit gas station grocery. Thursday night mostly stars a stream of regulars from the fishing town buying beer and cigarettes.
Rossi told Palomata he had just debated Governor Gregoire, and he had won. “We’re in good shape,” Rossi said. Then he bought a king-size package of King Henry Boston baked beans, wintergreen Certs, and a Red Bull for $20 in cash (one of his entourage paid, actually) and headed out of town.
Later that night at Yorky’s—I was on a junk food run— Palomata said he planned to vote for Rossi. “I’m a Republican. I like the Palin thing.” He was glad that Rossi thought the night had gone well.
I told Palomata about one of the main standoffs in that night’s debate, a point that seemed germane to the clerk. Both candidates were asked if they thought the minimum wage was supposed to be a “living wage” and would either one consider scaling it back.
“I don’t know of anybody getting rich on the minimum wage,” Gregoire told the hostile crowd (the debate was sponsored by the Association of Washington Business and the questions came from their membership). “The people of Washington are struggling. They go to the gas pumps and can’t afford to fill up the car, they go to the grocery and can’t afford to put food on the table…Washingtonians need to be able to provide for their families. Plenty of people are working minimum wage jobs that need to provide for their families, and I want to stand with Washingtonians.”
She said she supported the voter-approved minimum wage, $8.07 an hour. She also said she supported training programs for teen workers.
Rossi took the opposite point of view. Touting his Washington Restaurant Association endorsement (the most adamant opponents of the minimum wage), he said: “The minimum wage was not meant to be a family wage. It’s meant to be an entry level wage.”
The news pissed off Palomata. “If he lowers it,” he said, “I don’t want to vote for him. I’d be cutting my head off. I don’t want to demote myself.” Palomata and his girlfriend live in a rented cabin in Birch Bay, just south of Blaine, where the median family income is $44,000. (By way of comparison, the median family income in Seattle is $65,000.)
While Rossi’s line on the minimum wage didn’t play well with the Blaine convenience store clerk, it did play well with the crowd on the right side of the tracks in the 6,500-square-foot Semiahmoo Grand Ballroom at the Semiahmoo Resort Golf Spa, the classy hotel tucked away on the northern shoreline of the Puget Sound where AWB members drank red wine and nodded in approval at most of Rossi’s answers.
If you were to judge by the crowd reaction—the AWB gave Rossi an award earlier in the day and interrupted him several times during the debate with applause—Rossi was right when he boasted to Palomata about his successful night. He hit the themes he has hit before: Gregoire has increased spending 33 percent, created a $3.2 billion deficit, and raised taxes by $500 million. He also points out that Washington has one of the highest rates of small business failures in the U.S.
In contrast, Rossi says he will create an “entrepreneurial state,” balance the budget (“I’ve done it before and I will do it again”), and scrap all the requirements that he says are keeping insurance companies from coming to our state and creating a competitive health care climate.
Rossi’s most successful turn came when he accurately busted the governor for not being the deciderer on the Viaduct. “The big problem we have with transportation in this state is that we can’t make a decision until everybody is holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya,’ ” he said. “Sometimes you just have to make a decision.”
While Gregoire wasn’t an audience favorite, she was authoritative and forceful and certainly landed some blows herself. She unraveled Rossi’s talk of deregulating health care by linking Rossi’s GOP philosophy to the Bush-era disaster on Wall Street saying: “His other solution is deregulation, well, that worked great for the financial institutions of America.”
She also scored points (and even got a laugh from the otherwise unfriendly audience) when she answered a question posed by Rossi about her budget. Each candidate got to ask the other a question and Rossi asked if Gregoire had the chance, would she do her budget differently? The laugh came when she started by saying “unlike you” she would answer his question—Rossi had just dodged her question to him which asked what policies he disagreed with President Bush on.
Then she hit her main anti-Rossi theme (that his values are out of sync with the voters), saying she stood by her budget: “I balanced the budget and I will do it again…and not on the backs off children and seniors like he did, but by understanding the values of the people of Washington.” Rossi’s 2003 budget raised taxes on seniors in nursing homes, cut education funding by almost $1 billion, and threw 40,000 low-income kids off health care.
As they did in their first debate, the pair continued to fight over the projected $3.2 billion budget deficit. Gregoire maintains the state has a surplus and Rossi maintains Gregoire has spent the state into the red.
One final note that I found newsworthy in its own right beyond the debate: Governor Gregoire said the family leave act, a pet project of the liberal Senate, including Democratic Senate Majority leader Sen. Lisa Brown (D-3, Spokane), was “suspended.” Gregoire noted this when she was asked to detail her plans to deal with the projected deficit. (Rossi’s only specific to the same question was that he would cut the governor’s office budget, which he said Gregoire had increased by bulking up her “entourage.”)
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!