Search Results for: ’

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.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Stop on by for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.

I’m starting my evening at Chocolate for Choice, I won’t be stopping by until a little later. Maybe a nice stout to wash down all that chocolate?

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

***Hilarious response to my earlier post about Rep. Doug Ericksen. GOP bloggers are pissed at the bad press, while the B-Ham Herald’s political guy is just telling it like it is:

For the record, Wally, I generally try to write my own headlines, sir, unless someone else’s is better. Too bad you never seem to realize there is no conspiracy. I promise. You, of course, don’t complain that I’m “slamming” someone when I link to posts on your blog, which I will also continue to do.

***Rep. Geoff Simpson calls bullshit on the anti-light rail attacks dressed up in “governance reform” language:

You hear a lot of talk about “governance reform.” This push is coming from fans of regional financing of state highways and those opposed to light rail. Sound Transit is delivering projects on time and on budget, bringing in hundreds of millions in federal funds and passing audits with the highest grades.

The only thing I regret? That Rep. Simpson represents Kent. You rarely hear Seattle legislators speaking up like this about Sound Transit.

***Rick Steves is my homeboy.

***The P-I interviews tourists about Downtown Seattle:

Convention scouts descended on Seattle to rate its suitability to host major events and pronounced their judgment: The food is good, the people are great, the weather’s a bit of a drag – and could we please do something about all the transients downtown?

Seattle has always had a visible homeless population for as long as I can remember. It is also one of the most needlessly politicized issues we face.

When the Clark County Republican Party got caught posting the “Obama is a Muslim” smear on the front page of their official web site, I suppose you could’ve just chalked it up to stupidity or venality or wankery (or all three.) But now that a second county Republican Party has been caught officially peddling the exact same lies… well… that establishes a pattern.

A comment on Slog, (via Jon Devore) points us to a January 19, 2008 opinion piece in Aberdeen, WA’s Daily World, in which assistant editor Dan Jackson rails against the “mostly untrue and hugely inflammatory” email that has made its way into his and millions of other inboxes. But….

The most galling and appalling thing about this e-mail is how it got to my inbox. It was passed on by a local citizen who had received it from Cathy Colley, the chairwoman of the Grays Harbor Republican Party.

If it were just from joeblow@yahoo.com, I’d groan about it and maybe even respond to the writer that it was racist and untrue. I doubt I’d be writing this column.

Clicking the “send” button doesn’t require a degree in law or political science — nor should it — but when you’re the Republican Party chairwoman, you should know better than to forward something inflammatory that hasn’t been vetted.

Or, to forward something inflammatory that has been vetted, and totally debunked both here and here.

Two Republican Party organizations have now been caught officially pushing the same racist lies about Barack Obama, suggesting a common theme, if not a coordinated campaign of hatemongering and innuendo. It is time for state GOP chair Luke Esser to hold party officials accountable for their actions, or be held accountable for his own.

Josh Feit:

State Senator Mike Carrell (R-28) tried to undermine Senator Karen Keiser’s universal health-care bill at the hearing this afternoon by grilling her star witness, state Senator Jon Erpenbach from Wisconsin.

[…]

Senator Carrell tried a little scare mongering. He brought up the right wing’s shorthand for socialism. “Given that Wisconsin is on the border with Canada,” Carrell began harrumphing, “doesn’t your plan parallel theirs?”

Senator Erpenbach laughed—gave Carrell a geography lesson—and appropriately Carrell’s loaded analogy quickly came unglued. “No, it doesn’t [parallel the Canada model] except that everyone is covered,” he quipped getting another round of laughter at the geographically challenged Republican’s expense.

Somebody’s getting an atlas for Christmas.

ECB is gaming the refs:

Dear liberal media: Please stop pretending Hillary Clinton doesn’t exist. I know the narrative you’ve written is one in which Barack Obama triumphs against all odds to defeat the baby boomers’ Democratic Party machine and achieve the American dream, but for fuck’s sake, this is an election, not a coronation, right?

I think the coronation reference is funny, considering how it used to be that Hillary was the one getting coroneted.

Mark my words, when Obama wins South Carolina, the Times is going to play it as the story of the year: Miracle long-shot candidate comes back from near-death to triumph against impossible odds.

In 2004, Deaniacs complained loudly about unfair press coverage (“yeeeeargh!!”). In 2008, Edwards people dissed the media for pushing a “two person race” construct. (That is, until it actually became a two person race, like it is now.)

I don’t think the Clinton campaign is being ignored. We’re hearing about Bill Clinton’s false allegations of voter intimidation in Nevada, and his odd misinterpretation of Obama’s Reagan comments. We’ve heard Hillary praise Joe Lieberman, and put down Martin Luther King, Jr (if ever so delicately). Even though she’s good on the issues, it’s other stuff that bugs folks and garners press coverage.

Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale) has some truly neat-o ideas for getting the GOP back into the game!

Our state must also do a better job of monitoring and addressing sex offenders. State government needs to be proactive, not reactive.

Start with your own caucus, homeboy.

On the local front, I’m working on many issues including repealing the state mandate on septic tank inspections, creating public trails districts, and ensuring local transportation projects are delivered. At the end of the legislative session we will know we were successful if we can say, “They said it couldn’t be done — but together we proved them wrong.”

Putting the kibosh on septic tank inspection? Gov. Dan Evans had his “Blueprint For Progress”… Rep. Doug Ericksen has “repealing the state mandate on septic tank inspections”.

Nothing says “solid strategy for winning back the majority” like septic tank reform.

A few weeks ago, Paul wrote about the impending return of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to their respective Comedy Central television shows and wondered:

Am I the only one who thinks Jon & Stephen have something up their sly little sleeves in returning to their shows?

[…]

Do we really think they’ll be anywhere near as funny?

I’m a regular viewer of late night TV, and I have to tell you, “Strike TV” has been “Must See TV”.

First of, Jon Stewart was on fire during his recent interview of Jonah Goldberg:

Also, Jon was very classy in changing the name of his show from “The Daily Show” to “A Daily Show” out of respect for his writers. Stephen Colbert, OTOH, relied on some pre-strike taped segments to get him through the week:

Leno, who sucks with his writers, sucks extra hard without them. David Letterman and Craig Ferguson agreed to terms independently with the writer’s guild, so they came back fully staffed. Letterman, however, returned with a crazy “old guy who lives in the woods” beard, and had it shaved off during the show. As guest Tom Hanks remarked, “Dave, that’s the kind of bit shows without writers do.”

More than any other program, “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” takes the cake for strike-related mischief. Whether it’s spinning his wedding ring on his desk, playing German techno set to a laser show, or riding down a zip line from the balcony to his desk, Conan has been making the best of a bad situation. Perhaps the best example of goofy-ass shit on “Late Night” is the giant rat maze that guest Tom Brokaw had to navigate just to get to the stage:

[Unfortunately, the clip won’t embed properly, so click here to check it out.]