Search Results for: ’

At one point during my first full day as a Republican yesterday, I was overcome by doubt. I had publicly announced my support for Mike Huckabee, but I realized that I didn’t have a good reason—as a Republican—to support him.

I mean, as a Democrat I’d have every reason to support Huckabee as the Republican Nominee. All national polls show him losing to both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. My own analyses of state head-to-head polls suggest that Clinton and Obama would beat Huckabee.

Now that I am a Republican I really should have some positive reasons to support the Huckster. So I examined his positions on many issues and realized I disagreed with almost all of them:

• I find Huckabee’s positions on homosexuality antediluvian. I disagree with his opposition to civil unions, same-sex marriage, and adoption by same-sex couples. I disagree with the harebrained idea of a constitutional amendment defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman.
• I am fundamentally opposed to Huckabee’s stance on abortion. In fact, I have voted for Republicans before over this very issue. While living in Pennsylvania in 1998, I voted for Sen. Arlen Specter instead of his “pro-life” Democratic opponent Bill Lloyd.
• I cannot agree with Mike’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research.
• I think Huckabee is a idiot for refusing to accept the findings of modern evolutionary theory (hell…even the Catholic Church has recognized for some 30 years that biological evolution is real and is not incompatible with Christianity).
• I don’t agree with Huckabee at all on education—charter schools, display of the Ten Commandments in public schools, or “character education” in public schools. Give me a fucking break!
• Huckabee’s promise to replace the income tax with a national sales tax is utterly ludicrous.
• I don’t agree with Huckabee’s anti-gun control stance.
• I oppose Huckabee’s opposition to a government-mandated universal health care system. And I think his ideas for isolating AIDS patients is fucked-up!
• On immigration I cannot figure out where the Huckster stands—it looks like he is all over the place.
• I find the Chuck Norris thing really, really creepy.
• Huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister. Even though I was baptized at age nine as an American Baptist (and later became a Lutheran), Southern Baptists frighten me. They strike me as having a high proportion of radical extremists in their midst….
• Finally, I think Huckabee’s ideas of changing the Constitution to be more God-friendly reveal a radical extremist side to the man that I find scary.

In fact, there are only a small number of issues that I agree with Mike on. I pondered my political paradox. And then I fretted…and I fretted some more, and I….

Then, in the midst of my fretting, it struck me!

I don’t have to use rational positions, logic, consistency, or ethics at all. I’m a Republican now!

Being a Republican means never having to say you’re sorry for eschewing logic, rationality, consistency or ethics in a political context. As a Republican, all I need is a positive emotional response to Huckabee—some emotional bond….

That’s me (ca. 1984) and Mike. You see, we share the common bond of the bass. That’s the only connection I need.

So if you are a bass player or a guitar player, or play any instrument at all, you, too, can get behind Mike Huckabee this primary season. Maybe you like Chuck Norris movies…that’s a good reason, too.

And if you liked what a saxophone player from Hope, Arkansas did for America, just imagine what a Bass player from Hope could do!

Vote Mike!

“Most people know me as a football player, but I was also in social studies class.”

Introducing Brock Olivo, former University of Missouri football star, and newly minted Republican candidate for Missouri’s 9th Congressional District. Really.

During the last campaign cycle, local Republicans took to criticizing their opponents’ support from Progressive Majority as evidence of some sinister, out of district plot, but really, their most important contribution to any campaign is the kind of hands on candidate training that helps you avoid coming off as a total blathering doofus… like you know, Brock Olivo. (I think Camp Wellstone just found themselves a new training video on how not to conduct an interview.)

Speaking of which, Progressive Majority is bringing Wellstone Action’s Advanced Candidate and Campaign Management School to Federal Way, April 25-27, and a few spots are still available. Click here for more info.

Whenever we post anything on the race between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert for WA’s 8th CD, my comment thread fills up, almost without exception, with nasty trolls belittling Burner and her chances this November. But yesterday’s posts were different. Only one comment out of 50 was even remotely trollish, and even at that expressed an uncharacteristic air of resignation…

So I’m going to have to endure at least 2 years of Dumbass Darcy. Yuck.

Now perhaps our trolls are just hopeless romantics, and as such were too busy serenading their sweethearts on Valentines Day to spew their usual bile into the threads. Nah… that can’t be it. No, I’m guessing that despite their rabid readership of this blog they claim to hate, and their obvious dislike of all things both Darcy and Democratic, that air of resignation is real — for even the whackiest of wingnuts can occasionally sense reality creeping up on them, and man, reality doesn’t look too good for the folks on the other side right now.

The typical defense of Reichert has always been an attack on Burner, but the trolls seem to be losing the heart even for that… and why shouldn’t they, as Reichert’s vulnerabilities as a candidate continue to be exposed outside the careful coddling of a Republican majority? But even more discouraging to local R’s must be the dawning realization that Burner isn’t a one hit wonder, and that her 2008 campaign is gonna be at least as competitive as her come from nowhere challenge in 2006.

Reichert’s fundraising numbers suck; he’s lazy and arrogant and unaccustomed to putting the kind of work into campaigning expected in swing districts, even of incumbents. We all know that. But Burner continues to impress, establishing herself as one of only a handful of Democratic challengers to achieve superstar status amongst both netroots activists like me, and the DC establishment.

“Dumbass Darcy”…? Not so much. Indeed according to Congressional Quarterly, Burner has made the list of Top Ten challengers from either party in both total receipts ($874,000 for 7th place) and cash on hand ($607,000 for 5th place.) And she’s one of only four Democrats to make it onto both lists. And, she’s done all that while garnering over 88% of her money from individual contributors (compared to only 59% for Reichert.)

It’s gonna be a tough reelection for Reichert… and even the trolls are starting to admit it.

Joel:

One feature of the four-year political struggle between Gov. Chris Gregoire and almost-Gov. Dino Rossi has been an abundance of suspect and self-serving opinion surveys.

At last comes a poll, albeit with a few weeks under its belt, that surprised its takers.

[…]

In a trial heat, the incumbent Democrat had 43 percent, her Republican challenger received 41 percent, and 16 percent were undecided. The poll was based on interviews with 588 likely general election voters. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

Joel quotes a poll that was commissioned back in November, but an Elway poll done much more recently shows the race to not be as close:

Seattle public opinion researcher Stuart Elway has released a good-news, bad-news poll on this year’s gubernatorial election rematch between Democratic incumbent Chris Gregoire and Republican challenger Dino Rossi.

[…]

The good news for Gregoire is that while she defeated Rossi by only 133 votes in the 2004 election, she now has a 13-percentage-point lead over him in voter preference. Only 35 percent of the respondents said they definitely or probably are inclined to vote for Rossi. Eighteen percent said they were undecided.

I’m not knocking Joel. I think the newspapers, to a degree, have a bias in favor of making this race closer than it really is. I’m not saying it’s a shoo-in for Chris Gregoire, but I think local media flacks are going to go out of their way to frame this thing positively for Rossi.

Looking back at ’06, Joel went out of his way to pitch Mike McGavick as an “Evans Republican”, or at least in a much more favorable light. He’s doing the same for Dino:

Republicans used to be big-time greens, passing the state’s first package of environmental laws. They helped forge the Washington wilderness bill and legislation protecting the Columbia Gorge. Lately, however, the party has demanded repeal of the Growth Management Act.

Rossi might do well to get with tradition.

Republicans haven’t been leaders on enviro-issues for decades. Guys like Rossi, totally in league with the looney tune base of his party, doesn’t think global warming is even a big deal:

Q: “Where are you on global warming?”

Rossi: (scoffs) “Where am I on global warming? The uh, I mean it’s clear that the earth, the earth is warming. That is clear, I mean, I think if we were to count how many feet of ice we were under many, many, tens and hundreds of millions of years ago – right where we are standing, right here – the earth has been warming and it will continue to warm. Apparently we’ve hit, we’ve hit the same temperature that it, that it had increased to in about, oh, twelve hundred AD I think it was. So, I mean, it was warmer then too. Uh, there are cycles.

There are things that we can do obviously to, to make sure that the environment is clean. That the air is clean, that the water’s clean, all those sorts of things that need to be done.

I think you also need to make sure that you look at the real science of this too and make sure that it makes sense. And so, uh, well-uh I-uh there’s still a lot of debate going on this, we see it out there and there’s going to be a big debate coming up in the next two, three years. Because there are, you know, I’ve listened to other scientists who disagree with, you know, I know – why are people even bothering about long term planning if Al Gore says the world is going to end in ten years or fifteen years – but there are a lot of scientists that disagree. So, I mean, we’ll see how this debate goes, but I don’t think anyone should panic at this point.” [Rossi at Port Orchard Chamber, 3/08/2007]

The guy’s a lightweight on all sorts of issues, especially the environment. While I understand Joel’s impulse to give Dino an out, it ain’t going to happen. “Evans Republicanism” is as dead as Julius Caesar, and Rossi has absolutely no inclination to run under that banner in ’08.

On Friday, the day before the caucuses here, former Mike McGavick staffer Timothy Goddard gave this as one of the reasons why the Republican base should STFU and just support McCain:

Point two–A McCain loss will embarass the Washington State Republican Party

Particularly when McCain coasts to an easy victory in the primary on the 19th. It will demonstrate that the local party activists and caucus-goers are woefully out of touch with the Washington State Republicans who actually supply the votes. Remember those? They’re important. Now, it may be true that we activists are out of touch, and if it is, we need to figure out how we can rectify that situation. But personally, I’d rather it were not pointed out in such blatant fashion.

Because of the timing of our caucus and primary, and that of recent political events, we’re a party uniquely positioned to embarrass itself. That’s one opportunity I sincerely hope to avoid taking. Our party needs to gain influence over the voters of this state, both friendly and otherwise, and caucusing for Huckabee will diminish it, instead.

I went to a Democratic caucus on Saturday. It was chaotic and even frustrating at times, but one thing that I can’t complain about was whether or not it was democratic (in the small ‘d’ sense). It most certainly was. The initial presidential preferences were tallied, the amount of delegates chosen were based strictly upon the amount of support there was for each candidate. As I slowly heard what had been happening at the Republican caucuses, I noticed that things weren’t happening the same way. I think Timothy Killian is correct in his explanation here:

The rules of the Washington State Republican Party Caucus states that “there is no formal system applied in the Precinct Caucuses to relate the presidential preference of the Caucus participants to the choice of the precinct’s delegates.” In other words, unlike most other caucuses wherein delegates are tied in some formal way to the preferences of caucus attendees, each individual precinct was free to determine their delegate in any manner they chose. (See here).

As a result, a given precincts presidential preferences could break out this way:

Huckabee: 10
McCain: 8
Paul: 3
But, their delegates, which are unrelated to the above preferences, could break out this way:

Huckabee: 1
McCain: 2
Paul: 1

Pudge’s post at Sound Politics that Goldy references below seems to confirm this. Unlike the Democratic caucuses where the delegates were apportioned by support, at the Republican caucuses (from the link above):

There is no formal system applied in the Precinct Caucuses to relate the presidential preference of the Caucus participants to the choice of the precinct’s delegates. The participants at each Precinct Caucus alone determine if presidential preference is to be a factor in such choice and, if so, how it is to be applied.

In other words, the mathematical formula that Democrats used to determine delegate apportionment doesn’t seem to exist on the Republican side. If you look at the overall results, it looks like most of the Republican caucuses sent delegates who more-or-less represented the voters of their precinct, but there are definitely more than a few cases where Republican caucusers are claiming that they were “shut out” of the process:

Kim Davis, for example, said she felt like proper procedures weren’t followed at her precinct.

Davis, 47, a Huckabee supporter, said caucus-goers at her table were not given the opportunity to make the case for their candidate nor to vote on who among them would get to be delegates.

“Several McCain supporters just decided for the table and filled out the form,” she said. “I got bamboozled.”

The social conservatives in the Republican Party have long been bamboozled by the corporate bigwigs who actually run it, but it’s interesting to watch the bamboozlement happen at the grass roots level.

I’m definitely arriving at the same conclusion as Killian:

In summation, it may very well be that Huckabee won Washington State. Or maybe McCain won. At this point, we have no way of knowing. What we do know is this: Luke Esser is willfully mispresenting the results of the Washington State Republican Caucuses.

The entire media world has now reported that John McCain was the winner in Washington, but that result is not based on the actual results of the caucus preferences.

I invite the media to more closely scrutinize this.

I second that.

UPDATE: From commenter ‘rhp6033’ in the thread below (and I apologize for sending Christmasghost towards another mental breakdown there…), King5’s Robert Mak is looking into irregularities in the Snohomish County vote:

One Snohomish County caucus chairman told KING 5 that the delegate preferences are “dramatically different” than the attendee counts.

The Snohomish County Republican Party does not have the delegate preferences from many of its caucuses and is working to obtain them.

What with Washington State Republican Party Chair Luke Esser making boneheaded comments to reporters that he’s going to try to get as “close as we can to 100 percent” in the vote count, he doesn’t need much help making himself the butt of national jokes, but… well… we here at HA are always happy to lend a hand.

Over the last few years we’ve collected a treasure trove of Esserteria to amuse our friends and enrage our enemies, some of which is already gracing the pages of the widely read TPM Muckraker:

Esser wrote in the University of Washington’s paper that he was praying for rain, because that would drive Democratic-voting “shiftless deadbeats” away from the polls. He explained, “Years of interminable welfare checks and free government services have made these modern-day sloths even more lazy. They will vote on election day, if it isn’t much of a bother. But even the slightest inconvenience can keep them from the polling place.”

In this 1980’s era column Esser bemoaned the loss of “successful anti-deadbeat voter techniques (poll taxes, sound beatings, etc.)” while wistfully recalling the days of Nixonian tricksterism:

We all remember those great political traditions — whistle-stop tours, kissing babies, voter fraud, dirty tricks, and voting a straight Republican ticket. […] Like any sport worth its salt, in politics you have adversaries, opponents, enemies. Our enemies are loudmouth leftists and shiftless deadbeats. To win the election, we have to keep as many of these people away from the polls as possible.

Yeah sure, Esser was attempting to be funny, but many a truth is said in jest, and the column displays a degree of ruthless mean-spiritedness that has reared its head throughout his political career. You know, like the misleading TV ad Esser apparently commissioned, attacking Gov. Gregoire for of all things, Washington’s presidential caucus! “Gov. Gregoire and her party don’t want you voting on Feb. 5!” the storyboard proclaims, “What are Gregoire and the Democrats so afraid of?”

Um… A) Gregoire had absolutely nothing to do with the 178 members of the WSDCC choosing to allocate delegates via caucus rather than primary; and B) What is Esser so afraid of that he had to halt the counting if his party’s own messy caucus so that he could unilaterally declare McCain the winner just in time to make the Sunday morning headlines?

Why do I assume Esser showed favoritism toward McCain? Well you certainly wouldn’t expect a push for Mitt Romney from the guy who once disparaged the B.Y.U. football team as “those polygamists.” And it’s not so out of character to expect a touch of ethical flexibility from a double dipper who saw nothing wrong with collecting paychecks from the WSRP and the Office of the Attorney General at the same time.

And of course, no Luke Esser tribute would be complete without a reread of my classic essay, “Luke Esser Fucks Pigs“, a post Dan Savage lauded as “the funniest thing Goldy’s ever done.” (And unlike Esser’s college try at humor, my satire was not only funny, it actually attempted to make a point.)

And not only has Gov. Christine Gregoire endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, she just rearranged her schedule: she will be at Key Arena at noon today, standing on stage beside him.

I’m not sure about the value of endorsements, but I suppose in terms of local ones, that’s about as dramatic as they come here in WA just a day before the Democratic caucus. (That’s also, by the way, one more super delegate for Obama, countering Rep. Norm Dicks’ endorsement of Clinton.)

UPDATE:

Gov. Gregoire’s statement on Presidential endorsement

SEATTLE – Democrats in Washington state and across the country are fortunate to have the opportunity to select between two outstanding candidates, either of whom would be a great president. I have decided to endorse Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.

We must restore hope in America. We must put an end to politics of division – by gender, race, and faith. I know Washingtonians are tired of these divisions. They want us to tackle the tough challenges we face, and get result that make their lives better.

Barack Obama has a unique ability to reach across all the artificial divides and divisions to move our nation forward. At a time of great division in our country, we need a leader who will unite us. Barack Obama is that kind of leader.

I was inspired to pursue a career in public service by John F. Kennedy. His presidency heralded the arrival of a new generation of Americans to lead our nation. Like President Kennedy, Barack Obama is inspiring a new generation of young people to get involved. If elected, I believe he will lead us all – young and old, “blue and red” – to create a positive change in our communities, this nation and the world.

The most important issue to me is health care. When liberals denounce the Iraq occupation, and demand that our troops be brought home, I nod in agreement.

But when Gov. Gregoire extends WA Basic Health to cover more people, or when presidential candidates talk about just how they’ll cover the 45 million uninsured, I pay attention. It’s not that I don’t care about the war, or think it’s less important. I don’t. But the inequality of our health care “system” has been a war in and of itself. It’s a war that has cost our government billions, has put millions of Americans needlessly into debt, and has caused angst and heartache at the kitchen tables of so many.

It’s between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. How are their health care plans different?

Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.

And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.

But what’s wrong with Obama’s plan?

Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.

After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.

An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else.

Every person needs health care, and mandating it is the only way to get it done. What Obama is offering is a system that is signifigantly flawed, right out of the gate.

Krugman continues:

But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

Obama’s political sensibility is so fucked up that I bet he doesn’t understand the nature of the health care debate. It is going to be a knock down, drag out fight, and if Obama’s health care plan isn’t ready to go in Day 1, then he’s going to get hosed.

On the Today Show this morning, Democratic strategist Paul Begala said, “If McCain wins, he’s running for a third term for Bush. He wants to make Bush’s Iraq war permanent, Bush’s economic program permanent.” To which Pat Buchanan responded, “He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.” Think Progress has the clip.

One thing you gotta admire about Buchanan… he always speaks his mind.

Yeah, I know most of you are focused on today’s Super Duper Tuesday contest, but with both the Times and the P-I ignoring Rep. Dave Reichert’s pathetic fundraising report (Really? It wasn’t worth a single mention?) it is apparently left to me to cover what could be the biggest local story of the election season: Reichert and the Republican’s slow-motion collapse in Washington’s 8th Congressional District. And while Seattle’s two dailies haven’t seemed to notice yet, the inside-Beltway media certainly has, with first The Hill placing Reichert amongst the most vulnerable GOP incumbents, and now The Politico warning that Reichert may not be able to count on the NRCC to pull his ass out of the fire this time around.

Six House Republicans holding seats that are being eyed by the Democratic majority are confronting the new, brutal reality of their party’s fundraising slump. They are limping into highly competitive reelection races with less cash than their Democratic challengers.

The latest fundraising reports are a gut punch for this six-pack of GOP incumbents: Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), John R. Kuhl (N.Y.), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Jean Schmidt (Ohio) and Bill Sali (Idaho). With the exception of Sali, all represent swing districts.

But it’s also a blow to a House Republican conference that for years has prided itself on using aggressive fundraising tactics and mandates to make sure all of its incumbents held a significant money edge for their reelection.

A senior aide to a prominent House Republican requested anonymity to explain the significance of this fundraising downturn. “You’re going to see all these members in tough shape,” the aide said. “You have all these seats out there that are so expensive because of the money we’ve put in in the past. We might not be able to save some of these guys that we brought back last time.”

In the deft political hands of the late Rep. Jennifer Dunn, WA-08 was a cash cow for the national party, a safe seat in a wealthy suburban district that reliably pumped dollars directly into the NRCC and other campaigns. But over the past two cycles, Reichert has transformed his district into a congressional money pit, a political fixer-upper in constant need of expensive repair and maintenance. That “anonymous” comment from a “senior aide” to a “prominent” House Republican…? That was meant as a warning to Reichert and the others: either get your house in order and start paying your own bills, or prepare to find yourself out on the street, sleeping under bridges with our nation’s veterans.

Really.

It seems inconceivable that the GOP would abandon a district that has never elected a Democrat, but facing a structural disadvantage that makes 2006’s Big Blue Wave look like a swim at the beach, Republicans are going to have to resort to triage.

These latest fundraising numbers, combined with a raft of Republican retirements, explain why many top Republicans are bracing for the possibility of losses in November that could stretch into double digits.

At a time when the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee needs incumbents to raise as much money as possible, members who fall behind financially cannot count on receiving assistance in the crunch.

The NRCC emerged in the black this month for the first time this election cycle and had $5.5 million at the end of the year. But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, with over $35 million on hand, still has a sixfold cash advantage.

And the GOP committee, which traditionally spends money to protect its incumbents first, also will have to spend money in many of the 28 open seats where Republican incumbents have retired or resigned.

The first group of members who may not be able to count on NRCC support are the ones who posted weak fundraising numbers for the year. In the past, the committee has funded members with notoriously weak fundraising, such as former Indiana Republican John Hostettler. But given the party’s fundraising woes, that same support is unlikely to come this cycle.

In the final weeks of the 2006 campaign the NRCC focused its dwindling resources almost exclusively on “second tier” races like WA-08, winning most of them, but in the process losing almost every single first and third tier race. Unless Reichert reverses his fortunes and manages to keep pace with Darcy Burner, WA-08 could end up being one of those first tier races the GOP abandons. That is, if Reichert doesn’t abandon the race first.

UPDATE:
Fair is fair. The Times has apparently reproduced an excerpt from the longer AP story on Reichert’s fundraising woes. It hadn’t shown up in Google News at the time I wrote this post.

Commenting about Goldy’s dismissal from KIRO this week, Mark Gardner at WhackyNation provided the following analysis:

Besides being an embarassing ass on the air, Goldy’s show appealed to a not very valuable demographic: Liberals. Just think how they spend their money (drugs, booze, tatooes and porn, etc.) and how little money they have. Not a very appealing demographic for advertisers.

After several failed attempts in the comment thread at defending his thesis, Gardner then reversed course and said he was only kidding. As an avid reader of WhackyNation, however, I found myself bewildered and unsure of myself. All of this time, I’ve assumed that Gardner, Guzzo, and the nutty professor were serious people presenting serious views. This illusion has been shattered. Now I’m wondering what else I’ve read at WhackyNation that was only in jest.

Was Lou just kidding when he argued that gambling should be outlawed nationwide? What about boxing? Or alcohol?

Was Mark only kidding when he tried to claim that the value of oceanfront real estate was proof that global warming was a hoax?

What about when Lou wrote that Hitler and Mussolini both won the Nobel Peace Prize? Did I miss the punch line?

And back in September, when Lou called for the liquidation of all weapons manufacturers in the world and then 24 hours later defended our right to own guns, which of those two posts was serious and which one was in jest? What about the time he called for a ban on all billboards, but then criticized people who complain about advertising? Can someone from WhackyNation please clarify which of those views was the serious one and which one was for laughs?

When Professor Manweller questioned the intelligence of southern Republicans because they voted for Ron Paul over Rudy Giuliani 2 to 1, I assume he was only kidding because any idiot could have used Google to see that voters in Michigan, Iowa, and Nevada voted that way too.

And I feel dumb that I didn’t consider that when Lou called David Postman a Socialist propagandist that he was just having a little fun with a fellow journalist.

All of this time, Mark, I never realized how much you guys are just a jolly bunch of jokesters. I always thought you were writing stupid post after stupid post because the three of you truly were idiots. Boy do I feel dumb knowing that you’ve only been pretending to be idiots.

Seattle Times political reporter David Postman is reporting from eastern Washington this week, and he’s sending back some great stuff. His most recent post is from Garfield County. (Anti-government types, pay attention: Garfield’s two largest employers are the federal government and the county itself. Go figure.)

Postman interviews some rock-ribbed Republican family farmers, and finds that not everything is going as planned:

These are no longer the energetic Republican backers who in 2000 spent $3,000 of their own money to make a batch of 4-by-8-foot “Save Our Dams” signs that urged people to vote Republican. You won’t see them at a rally this year, or maybe even at the Republican caucus Feb. 9. Where Mary had “a totally intense feeling” about the campaign in 2000, today there is a palpable sense of disillusionment.

In the GOP’s SOP, meaningless fringe issues are used to rile the peons, while the Wall Street faction gets exactly what they want. (Dividend tax cuts! Corporate tax cuts! A farm bill that pays millions to ADM and peanuts to the little guys!)

Meanwhile the Dyes sold off their life insurance policies, reduced their health insurance to a bare minimum, and put their kids on the state’s Basic Health Plan. And they all scrimped. When there was a bit of milk left in the bottom of a glass, it got poured back into the carton for another day. Mary said:

“In large part, there’s something really awful to me about a man who has been farming since 1978, now in his mid-50s, having to struggle like this.”

Farmers were at the epicenter of the Progressive movement in the early twentieth century. They said, through their great champion, that they would not be crucified on a “cross of gold.”

Mary stayed involved in politics up until mid-2004. She was a Bush supporter and leading the Washington state effort to draft that year’s party platform. Then as her family and friends struggled she no longer wanted to be part of the system that had once energized her.

She quit the campaign and all the party business. She didn’t tell anyone why and everyone was apparently too polite to ask.

“George Bush has betrayed me personally. … I just definitely thought he understood.”

Software folks have a saying for when something doesn’t work right. They say “it’s a feature, not a bug.” The Bush Administration was always all about screwing the little guy and using the government for the advantage of the powerful. That was the idea all along.

It would be easy to go all “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” on these folks, and to dis them for voting against (what I perceive to be) their economic self interest, but that’s gauche. I can’t expect them to be wooed by an argument of economic populism if the leading Democratic candidates aren’t wooing them with one. It’s as simple as that.

So, the Seattle Times has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Big deal. Next week they’ll also endorse Sen. John McCain on the Republican side. If the Times really embraces the kind of change they believe Obama represents, they wouldn’t endorse anybody for the Republican nomination, least of all a warmonger whose idea of straight talk is promising crowds “there will be other wars.”

Personally, I doubt many Washington state Democrats are looking to the op-ed pages for advice on who to caucus for on February 9, but if they are, I’m guessing the most influential endorsement of the primary season may have come today in the New York Times, and I’m not talking about an unsigned editorial. No, the big news following Obama’s impressive 29-point rout of Hillary Clinton in yesterday’s South Carolina primary was the moving op-ed column written by Caroline Kennedy, “A President Like My Father“:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

[…] I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

I suppose I might have a reputation for being a hard-edged cynic, but my eyes actually teared up a bit when I first read Kennedy’s words. I so desperately want to believe what she believes, that Obama really does have that “special ability” to inspire and to lead and to bring us back together as a nation. I fully understand her father was just a man, as flawed as any, but that doesn’t diminish President Kennedy’s impact as a leader, however symbolic, and I too long for a president who can inspire me the way so many of my parent’s generation were inspired by him.

As both a liberal and an American, I have long felt cheated by history… robbed of a promising future by a handful of assassins’ bullets. Had President Kennedy lived to complete his terms, might we have avoided the mistakes that led to an all out involvement in Vietnam, a war that divided our nation and drained us of precious blood and treasure? Had Bobby Kennedy survived to win the White House, would American liberalism have survived to finally achieve the vision of economic justice and security first enunciated by FDR, and wouldn’t Americans have retained the faith in government that carried us through the Great Depression and World War II, rather than seeing that faith shattered by the betrayal that was Watergate? Had Martin Luther King Jr. lived to guide our nation to the Promised Land, rather than just glimpsing it from some far-off mountain top, would the Republican Party have been free to so ruthlessly exploit Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” to advance their selfish, conservative agenda?

My critics like to characterize me as some wide-eyed, lefty moonbat, but I’m nothing more or less than a 1970’s-era centrist who has been radicalized in style if not in substance by a decades-long, right-wing campaign to defile the proud legacy of American liberalism, and to brand its adherents as idiots, ideologues, traitors and worse. The radicalized middle from which I come did not lightly seize on unbridled partisanship as our political weapon of choice, but that is the weapon that has been used to cudgel us into submission for far too long. That the fierceness of the netroots and the new progressive movement to which it belongs frightens the political and media establishment, is understandable, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that our aggressive rhetoric and tactics have not played a significant role in our recent electoral victories. Only now that a netroots-powered Democratic majority is on the verge of seizing unchallenged control of the federal government, do we hear a renewed call for bipartisanship… and that is why I wince every time I hear Obama echoing their frame.

When Obama talks about reaching his hand across the aisle, the cynic in me envisions the other side leaping at the opportunity to lop it off. When Obama talks about bipartisanship, I fear it means willingly sacrificing the very political advantages we have fought so hard to achieve. It’s not that I don’t trust Obama, it’s just that I don’t trust the Republican leadership to reciprocate in kind… not these Republicans… not the party that so joyously swiftboated a war hero, and took a man who left three limbs on the battlefield and morphed him into Osama bin Laden. Hardened by decades of partisan, political war, I admit to finding a certain degree of solace in the more calculating nature of Hilary Clinton — the very same quality that appears to turn off so many other voters. Better to be calculating than naive.

That said, I want to believe, like Caroline Kennedy, in the promise of Obama. I want a president who I don’t simply admire, but one who I find truly inspirational. I want my eyes to fill with tears, not at the thought of what might have been, but what can be. And not since Mario Cuomo ended his flirtation with a White House bid back in 1991 have I found a presidential candidate who offers me this hope.

Tomorrow, Sen. Ted Kennedy will appear with his niece at a rally in Washington D.C., to announce his endorsement of Barack Obama, and to personally pass the torch of Camelot on to a new generation. No doubt the right will take the opportunity to vilify Sen. Kennedy in the hope that some of their ridicule might rub off on the man he supports, but in doing so they perilously dismiss the power of symbolism, for even Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” was a reference to Camelot, and an attempt to co-opt the aura of the Kennedy era as his own.

Perhaps Camelot was always only a dream, but that doesn’t mean it can’t someday come true. Tomorrow, Barack Obama, surrounded by his beautiful wife and young children, standing beside the daughter and brother of the fallen king, has an unprecedented opportunity to rekindle this dream in the hearts of Americans. It is an opportunity to restore the faith of even hardened cynics like me.

WhackyNation’s Mark Gardner wants me fired. I won’t bother linking to his post ’cause Carl has already blockquoted the hell out of it over on Effin’ Unsound, and besides… why should I drive traffic to the website of somebody who wants me fired? But I thought I’d take a moment to comment on what I see as a disturbing theme of some like Gardner on the right.

Gardner asks “When is KIRO going to fire David Goldstein?” and then goes on to write:

I’ve said it here before: I don’t understand why Bonneville Broadcasting Management in Salt Lake doesn’t tell the local station manager to fire Goldstein for embarassing Bonneville’s reputation for quality journalism. I would have fired this smart ass a long time ago. I’m sure Lou would have, too.

Ignoring for a moment that A) Gardner is objecting to something I posted on my blog, not something I said on air; B) I’m no more a journalist than, say, Dori Monson; and C) nothing I wrote in that post was untrue… what Gardner really doesn’t understand — what has totally flummoxed my right-wing critics since Bonneville International took control of the station last year — is why this wholly owned subsidiary of the Church of Latter Day Saints hasn’t fired my sorry ass just because I am unabashedly liberal. That’s what truly confuses folk like Gardner, who obviously believe that the proper and expected use of the power of media ownership is to stifle the voices of those who disagree with you.

Notice that Gardner doesn’t ask why KIRO management doesn’t fire me, but rather, why the folks in Salt Lake City don’t order them to do so… you know, like Gardner expected they would back when news first broke that Bonneville was reacquiring the station, because, hell, the whole point of owning media is to control the public debate, right? Gardner’s vindictive call for me to lose my livelihood, and his puzzlement at conservative ownership’s failure to fire a liberal host, is a window into Gardner’s own pseudo-fascist fantasy about the proper role of money in politics. And I can only assume that his anger over my continued employment is a testament to a job well done.

So why hasn’t KIRO fired me? Well, perhaps because I bring them raw talent with a lot of upside, a virtual lock on local liberal talk in this very liberal market, and a proven track record of bringing in quality guests on weekend nights like no other weekend host before me? Perhaps because I’ve slowly but steadily grown my audience over the past year and a half, and my breaks are packed to the gills with paying spots? And maybe — just maybe — because serving the needs of the community and turning a profit appear much further up the list on their mission statement than Gardner’s goal of crushing liberal dissent?

If you have your own thoughts on why KIRO hasn’t fired me, please add them to the comment thread.

From The Hill:

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s (R-Colo.) entrance into the contentious battle for the open Appropriations Committee seat pits the House campaign committee chairman against two of his most vulnerable members.

And who is the other “most vulnerable” member seeking to plump up his coffers via a lucrative seat on the Appropriations Committee? None other than our own “Desperate Dave” Reichert.

The NRCC spent $1.8 million to defend Musgrave and $2.3 million defending Reichert last cycle. Both members narrowly won reelection and are once again targets for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

Musgrave defeated Democrat Angie Paccione 46 to 43 percent. Reichert faces a rematch in 2008 against his 2006 challenger, Democrat Darcy Burner, whom he defeated 51 to 49 percent.

And that $2.3 million doesn’t even include the god-knows-how-much RNC money Karl Rove spent directing 585,164 voter contacts into the 8th Congressional District, a stunning 41,666 on election day alone!

With Musgrave now in contention for the Appropriations seat, Reichert can pretty much kiss his chances goodbye. Both lay equal claim to the need to prop up a vulnerable incumbent, but Reichert’s call for geographical diversity is trumped by Musgrave’s: currently, no Colorado member sits on the 36-seat panel, whereas Washington is well represented on the Democratic side by appropriations-savvy Rep. Norm Dicks.

Which I suppose explains why Reichert is suddenly changing his tune. On Friday he anxiously told reporters that “I need a seat now. Those open seats for people who are in safe seats will come later.” But in the face of Musgrave’s equally desperate challenge, Reichert spokesman Mike Shields is now touting loftier objectives:

“[Reichert] is the person who will help the conference the most … Dave is for more transparency and accountability.”

Yeah… um… ’cause what could be more transparent than admitting on camera that he votes the way his party leadership tells him to vote, because “I have to do that over here … I have to be able to be very flexible in where I place my votes”…? And really, who should be held more accountable for Gary Ridgeway’s 18-year killing spree than the detective who dismissed him as suspect early in the investigation despite an eyewitness account?

“Transparent” and “accountable”… yeah, that’s Dave Reichert. And nothing could be more transparent than Reichert’s desperate effort to prop up his flagging campaign by securing himself a seat on the lucrative Appropriation’s Committee.