Leviticus 19:19
Breed your livestock animals only with animals of the same kind, and don’t plant two kinds of seed in the same field or wear clothes made of different kinds of material.
Discuss.
by Goldy — ,
by Darryl — ,
Olympic GOLD:
Mark Fiore: ALEC Rock:
Voter Disenfranchisement:
Obama: Weekly Address.
Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Maryland edition.
Guns and Violence:
Thom with Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.
Roy Zimmerman: Beer Party Anthem for patriots.
Context Matters:
Alyona’s Tool Time Award: Bachmann on her witch hunt.
White House: West Wing Week.
Homophobic Food:
Thom with some Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.
Zina Sanders: Michele Bachman’s Christian Crusades:
Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican Indiana edition.
More Mitt:
Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Kentucy edition.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
by Darryl — ,
Results of a new SurveyUSA poll in Washington’s first congressional district (via KING 5) are out. The poll was taken on the 24th and 25th of July on a sample of 563 likely voters in the district (4.2% MOE). The results:
The best news about this poll is the 43% that Democratic candidates take, edging out Koster’s support at 38% (or 40% if you include Republican-turned-independent Ishmael). In head-to-head general election contests:
If the race were between Koster and DelBene, SurveyUSA finds it’s a dead heat—42% each. It’s also effectively a dead heat if it were Koster vs. Burner.
Of course, with 17% (primary) and 16% (general) still undecided, there is a lot of room for change between the end of the primary and the general election.
by Carl Ballard — ,
There’s a garbage strike in Seattle and the surrounding suburbs. I’m embarrassed to say, I didn’t know the situation before the strike, and it certainly doesn’t look good.
Talks between Waste Management and recycle drivers, represented by Teamsters Local 117, stalled on Thursday because the company refused to bargain in good faith. The mediator called off negotiations after the company refused to respond to the Union’s proposal.
“Waste Management did not come prepared to bargain today,” said Tracey A. Thompson, Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 117. “We came back to the table to avoid a public health crisis but it’s clear that Waste Management wants to provoke a labor dispute.”
Waste Management has flown in out-of-state strike breakers to prepare for a lockout and has employed staffers from Huffmaster, a company that specializes in lockouts and strikes. “Waste Management is spending thousands of dollars on wages, plane tickets, rental cars, and hotel rooms for out-of-state strike breakers and security guards. That’s money that could be used to match proposals made by its major competitors,” Thompson said.
You can take that with a grain of salt being as it’s the union’s site. But I think it’s important for them to be able to get their side out.
… Late note, the link is old. When I wrote about not being aware of the situation, I thought that covered that it was for background, but re-reading it it looks like a current thing. So just to clarify.
by Carl Ballard — ,
My questions bold, Dusty Hoerler’s as they were sent:
1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?
The state is clearly not living up to its duty to provide for the education of young people. I was heartened by the fact that our state’s education budget emerged from the last session relatively intact, but I’m not satisfied merely holding the line. We’ll need to dedicate an additional $6.8 billion per biennium through 2018 to fund K-12 education at a level consistent with our constitutional mandate. That’s a tall order, and it simply cannot be done without raising more revenue.
But this is about more than obeying a court order to meet our constitutional obligations – it’s about the long-term strength of our democracy and our economy. That means that we have to take a broader view of education, to include early learning and making our public universities affordable again. We are seeing an alarming trend in higher education. Tuition at University of Washington has nearly doubled in the last four years, and, according to an article in Monday’s Seattle Times, tuition is projected to surpass $20,000 per year for in-state students by the end of this decade.
Why? Because our state legislators decided to, in part, balance the state’s budgets on middle and working class families and their children. Just four years ago, tuition only covered 41% of the costs of a UW education, while today, tuition pays 71% of the cost. In addition to our four-year schools, we also need to support our community colleges and trade schools, who are seeing similar budget cuts.
2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to raise is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?
Washington’s tax system is one of the most regressive in America. The wrong people are being taxed too much! I believe that the rich and corporations need to pay their fair share. Not only are the poorest Washingtonians being taxed, but our tax dollars are indirectly subsidizing special interest loopholes. Here’s what I propose:
A. Sunset all corporate tax breaks. I’m in favor of legislation that sunsets all corporate tax breaks automatically. There are certainly some tax breaks that I support: Those encouraging the development of clean energy and green jobs, for instance. However, the legislature should reauthorize them every five years – at a minimum. If they prove to be productive, we should keep them on the books. But some of the tax breaks are frankly silly and need to be eliminated.
B. Aggressively prosecute corporate cheaters. I believe that if hard working people play by the
rules, they should be able to get ahead. However, time and time again, we see big corporations who are willing to step outside the law. While most of these transgressions have occurred elsewhere, I believe that we must draw the line in the sand against abuses in Washington State.
C. Our discussion about the income tax is not over – not as far as I’m concerned. I intend to be just as vocal a proponent of the progressive income tax in Olympia (and across the whole state) as I have been in this campaign.
3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that, how will you get your agenda passed?
I’m a grassroots organizer – my political experience is in the hard work of organizing workers and mobilizing voters. I believe in the power of pressuring elected representatives from below, and I believe the voters of Republican-leaning districts share the concerns of the voters of my own district. We value effective schools and quality infrastructure, and we’re frustrated by a legislature mired in deadlock. I’ve been endorsed by normally Republican-leaning groups such as the Mechanical Contractors Association because I believe in reaching out, listening, forging relationships, and finding common ground. I think the best way to break that deadlock is to speak to voters in conservative districts directly.
I have volunteered to organize a Values and Priorities Tour that crisscrosses our state from small rural towns to urban city centers. In community centers and public school auditoriums, union halls and parking lots, we’ll have a frank discussion about our challenges, our values, the measures we need to introduce some common sense to our tax and budget systems – and what working people can do to help. I’ve learned something important: If we want to change the way our state does business in the face of special interest lobbyists, we’ve got to rally the people who have the most at stake in the decisions Olympia makes.
4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?
I respect and appreciate the strong progressives in this race. But even in a race where each candidate can advance the right positions and promise the right votes, background matters: It molds the values you’ll refuse to compromise and determines what you’ll fight the hardest for.
I offer a blue-collar background. I’m a plumber by trade, a veteran union organizer and homeowner advocate. I co-founded SustainableWorks, an energy-efficiency nonprofit, to help jumpstart our state’s investment in clean energy jobs. (I’ve helped create jobs in the middle of a recession, while at the same time helping protect the environment — over the last three years, SustainableWorks has created 55 good, family wage jobs.) Last year, I organized a group of homeowners to travel to Olympia to testify in favor of foreclosure mediation legislation. My civic life has been dedicated to creating security and opportunity for working families, and this campaign has been bolstered by the contributions – of money, yes, but primarily of time and sweat – of middle-class workers. I believe that this is a seat we need to retain for working families.
5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part is this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?
The best answer is the politically hardest one: We need a restructuring of our revenue system, and that means communicating directly with our cross-state neighbors. We can change the way Olympia does business, but it starts with a discussion. I’m running to help lead that discussion.
by Darryl — ,
A new Elway poll (first reported on Publicola) has been released for the 2012 Washington state gubernatorial contest. The poll of 405 registered voters (5% MOE) surveyed from the 18th to the 22nd of July has former Democratic congressman Jay Inslee leading Republican state AG Rob McKenna by 43% to 36%.
The poll reflects a turn-around in the race that has, until now, mostly been led by McKenna:
If you squint a little, you can probably discern a long-term trend away from a McKenna and toward Inslee.
The regional breakdown in the new poll has Inslee leading McKenna in Seattle (+33%), King County outside Seattle (+8%), Pierce and Kitsap (5%), and North Sound (16%). McKenna leads in Eastern Washington (+9), and they are tied “South and West of Puget Sound.”
As you might imagine, Inslee leads among women (+10%), just as he did in the previous Elway poll (+2%) and last weeks Survey USA poll (+9%). More surprisingly, he now leads among men (+3%), reversing McKenna +5% lead in the previous Elway poll and +11% lead in the Survey USA poll.
Elway chalks up the lead change to a shift in preference among independent voters:
Most of the difference between last month’s findings and these is accounted for by a collapse in McKenna support among Independent voters. McKenna led among Independents by 42-29% in June, but Inslee led Independents by 31-29% this month. Meanwhile, the number of undecided Independents jumped from 29% last month to 40% this month. Since Independents are necessary to winning an election here, this volatility indicates a see-saw battle to November.
I subjected the Elway results to a Monte Carlo analysis of a million simulated elections. The results have a great deal of uncertainty as only 322 voters expressed a preference. The final tally gives Inslee 865,677 wins to McKenna’s 126,742 wins. That is, if the election was held now, the poll results suggests Inslee’s lead would hold with a 87.2% probability, and McKenna would win with a 12.8% probability.
Since Statisticians usually consider 95% probability as the cut-off, Inslee’s lead is “within the margin of error.” Here is the distribution of election outcomes from the simulated elections:
Last week’s Survey USA poll (that I analyzed here) was taken on the 16th and 17th of July, immediately before the Elway poll, and had McKenna leading Inslee 42% to 41%. The poll was a little larger than the Elway poll, with 525 of 630 registered voters expressed a preference for Inslee or McKenna.
What happens if we do a similar analysis using both polls jointly? After a million simulated elections, Inslee came out on top 699,377 times and McKenna won 291,968 times. Thus, Inslee would be expected to win a July election with a probability of 70.5% to McKenna’s 29.5%. Here is the distribution of election outcomes:
Statistically, the race is still a tie, of course.
A final point of interest is the “likeability” measure that has Inslee up 34% to 27%. Unfortunately, this wasn’t reported for the previous Elway poll. One must wonder if the reports of McKenna’s negative interactions with the media are taking a toll. Additionally Jay Inslee’s excellent “introductory” ad that began airing on July 8th has probably helped his image and name recognition among voters.
A plausible reason for McKenna’s erosion of support is the recent Supreme Court ruling on, and the ensuing media coverage of McKenna’s role in the lawsuit against “Obamacare.” Just as voters are getting “in the mood” for the 2012 election season in a year with a polarizing presidential election, the ruling has provided a dose of hard partisan information about McKenna.
by Carl Ballard — ,
My questions in Bold, Shelly Crocker’s as they were sent.
1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?
In a recent publication, Washington was given a “C” rating for our public schools overall, and is 42nd out of 50 in per-pupil spending. If that is the best we can do in achieving our paramount duty, we aren’t trying hard enough. How to approach K-12 education is a highly contentious issue, however. Voters have rejected charter schools time and again, and it is time to realize that there is no magic fix, but there are things we can do right away to get closer to meet our duty to the state. We need to make sure teachers are adequately paid with cost of living increases, but still held accountable for their performance. Increasing teacher’s attention to each student by reversing the size of our growing class is as simple as re-hiring some of the thousands of qualified teachers who have been laid off in the past few years.
Additionally, the massive cuts in higher education (50% in three years) must be reversed. Our universities are a public good: we cannot make cost a prohibitive factor for students, and burdening students with debt is just another regressive tax.
2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to pass is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?
Washington has the most regressive tax structure in the country, and if we want to give more than just lip service to the different worthwhile services that have been fighting in a zero-sum game down in Olympia, we need to create a fairer and more sustainable revenue stream. However, the reality in Olympia makes it extremely difficult to create substantial tax reform. It is the nickel and dime regressive taxes and fees that have made people so disillusioned with government, and I will do everything I can to avoid creating more of them. Whoever is elected to represent the 46th will have the privilege of being a strong voice for tax reform, including advocating for an equitable income tax, as our District strongly supports increasing revenues.
3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that how will you get your agenda passed?
Frankly, to faithfully represent my District, there are many issues I will not be able to compromise on with Republicans. However, the obstructionist politics we’ve seen from Republicans at the federal level lead to dysfunctional government. Washingtonians do share many values, whatever their political persuasion, and I will work to find areas of common ground. Very few bills fit as cleanly along the ideological spectrum as we’d like to believe, and a high majority of bills that pass through the Legislature receive some level of bipartisan support. If Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, I will look across the aisle to find areas of agreement, and I will keep an open mind toward any bill that comes before me in the Legislature, no matter where it came from.
4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?
All of my fellow Democratic candidates are competent individuals and share similar progressive values, but what sets me apart is the breadth of my life experience. If you name any walk of life, I’ve probably been there. I’m a high school dropout. I came out as a lesbian and left home when I was 15. I came to Seattle, and with the help of Pell grants, financial aid, and other government services I was able to work my way through Seattle Central Community College and the University of Washington. I understand the value of these services, and I can appreciate the situations of the less fortunate among us because I’ve experienced it firsthand.
Now I own a successful law firm, and I see a whole other side of our community. In my work as an insolvency and bankruptcy attorney, along with my continuing work in my community, I work hard every day to make sure people get a second chance. I’m not afraid to stand up against big banks and mortgage companies, and I’ve been taking on those fights in the courts, one family at a time. As a volunteer, I have also worked hard to end homelessness, travelling to Olympia as a citizen advocate to speak with legislators about preserving our social safety net. These experiences have taught me that working together, we can make our world better. It won’t be easy, but I’ve faced up to some of life’s toughest challenges and come through them stronger, and I am ready to take on the challenges of representing our District in Olympia.
5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part of this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?
We are lucky to live in an area of the state with so many successful companies and economic potential, and a part of being so successful means being a tax exporter: the taxes we pay are going to the places that need it most. What is needed is complete tax reform to bring about a more equitable tax system overall. The residents of the 46th District are generally not adverse to paying taxes when they trust that the money is being used fairly and effectively. However, there are also social and infrastructure needs right here in the 46th, and I will not let my constituents be neglected.
by Darryl — ,
This morning, The Stranger’s Dominic Holden wrote (my emphasis):
As Attorney General Rob McKenna explains this morning, “The national political debate sometimes oversimplifies and narrowly defines ‘women’s issues.'” That’s according to a press release that he didn’t send to The Stranger (but he did send to other media outlets) as part of his campaign to be Washington’s Republican governor.
So…McKenna is still singling out at least one media source and being an asshole to them.
But, since other media got the press release, The Stranger’s Cienna Madrid showed up as press. After all, it is in the public’s interest to understand the “nuance” of McKenna’s position on “women’s issues” like the Reproductive Parity Act. (Explaining his positions was the purpose of the event.) Here’s what happened:
And I’m sure I stood out in my Pretty-Woman-business-casual attire. Nevertheless, his staff greeted me with polite acceptance when I identified myself as press, so I’d bet other reporters were allowed in the Statewide Women’s Leadership Luncheon, where McKenna was enthusiastically unveiling the “key role” women would play in implementing his “New Direction for Washington State,” should he become our next governor.
But his staff became politely unhelpful as soon as I identified myself as a Stranger reporter.
“This is private event and not for press,” one staffer told me. “You’ll have to move elsewhere.”
Holy fuck! McKenna is either astonishingly petty, bizarrely paranoid, or is just fucking frightened of The Stranger!
That’s just Not Very Gubernatorial.
What would he do as Governor? How would a cowering, frightened Rob McKenna be able to hold a press conference where Cienna, or Eli, or Dominic, or (OH MY GAWD!) GOLDY was present.
He might just pee his pants. And in front of all the “good” press, too!
Mark my words. If Rob McKenna is elected Governor, he will institute a new press credentialing process that will exclude any and all access to his office by sources on his media enemies list. This is why all the media should be outraged and all over McKenna for selectively excluding the press.
For the rest of us, here is some homework: Go to twitter and make the #NotGubernatorial a local trending hash tag. Other tags you might include: #wagov #waelex @robmckenna
Update: In which they “forget” to invite The Stranger again, but Goldy goes anyway.
by Carl Ballard — ,
– The Stranger’s primary endorsements.
– The Joe Paterno statue has to go.
– McKenna’s Aide resigns over those godawful tweets.
– Only 53% of people think Romney’s policies favor the wealthy?
– It’s over a year later and having my abortion was the best thing I did.
– Tomorrow is a good day to volunteer at parks in Seattle.
by Carl Ballard — ,
My questions in bold; Sarajane Siegfriedt’s as is.
1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?
Obviously, the state is not living up to its paramount duty. The judge in the McCleary case made this crystal clear, as did another judge in a similar case in the 70s. “Paramount duty” is most often interpreted as 50% of the state budget. We are currently devoting only about 42% of the $32 billion budget to Basic Education. (Basic Education was expanded by the legislature in the 2011 session.) We are $4 billion short. The “down payment” of $1 billion for K-12 Basic Education is due in the 2013-2015 biennial budget. We have to make up another $3 billion by 2018. As the Governor said and as both candidates for Governor failed to grasp, we have to raise taxes to pay for this.
2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to pass is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?
I am not the only candidate or legislator who will refuse to vote to raise the sales tax. For a decade, I have long fought for social and economic justice as part of the Poverty Action Network. Three years ago, I joined with Fuse, the WA Budget & Policy Center and many others as the Our Economic Future Coalition to propose progressive plans to increase revenue. I support a capital gains tax, which falls on the top 3% and exempts sale of a primary residence. It’s time to revisit the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. It’s been 10 years since Eyman’s initiative eliminated it, economic times have changed, huge budget cuts have been made and transit and ferries have suffered without the tax. The MVET is inherently a progressive tax. We also need a per-barrel tax on oil. The 60% tuition increases at our colleges and universities since 2009 constitute one of the worst taxes on the poor (especially community college and voc/tech) and they need to be reversed. This is a wealthy state, but our tax system doesn’t reflect that fact. Wealthy individuals and corporations need to pay their fair share.
3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that how will you get your agenda passed?
I disagree with your premise. I believe we will be able to pass more progressive taxes for several reasons. One reason is that the challenge to Eyman’s I-1053 was ruled unconstitutional. I believe the Supreme Court will sustain this ruling before the beginning of the 2013 session. I believe the Democrats will retain a working majority in both houses, based in part on Obama’s popularity and the presence of the marijuana and equal marriage initiatives on the ballot. Second, education is widely supported by both parties and we have the McCleary ruling, which makes raising taxes imperative under any governor. Third, we have a bipartisan legislative task force that must come up with a plan to raise $1 billion for Basic Ed before the session starts—or else. Fourth, we have the House Democratic Caucus coming up with their own progressive plan to raise revenue. Fifth, we are far more likely now than in prior years to reform the system of tax exemptions, because the Grover Norquist pledge was broken by the Republicans last session when they sponsored and voted to repeal the Wall Street Bank tax exemption. There are 570 tax exemptions that lack a statement of legislative intent. This will change, and measurable outcomes for tax exemptions will be demanded.
4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?
I’m the only candidate endorsed by the 46th District Democrats, the King County Democrats, and Rep. Phyllis Kenney, whom I hope to succeed. I have a record of fighting for social and economic justice on state issues. I have been focused on Olympia since I lobbied there for alcohol and drug treatment fulltime in the 2002 session. Afterward, I joined several boards, including Solid Ground, one of the largest social service agencies in King County. We recently produced 50 units of low-income family housing at Sand Point, with 50 more on the way. I am the only candidate who has been involved with the Democratic Party. Since 2004, my involvement has been with issues, writing platforms and more recently as Legislative Action Chair of the King County Democrats—their volunteer lobbyist, if you will. The job includes working with labor and all the major progressive coalitions and with legislators to form a consolidated legislative agenda. I track bills, send out legislative alerts and organize a lobby day. More than anything else, this position has given me the breadth of experience to make informed decisions on priority legislation in Olympia. Our number one priority has been progressive revenue reform, in order to pay for everything else, including education, the safety net, housing and the environment.
I have lived in the 46th District for the past 15 years, in Lake City. I’m involved in my district, with issues of homelessness and plans for transit-oriented pedestrian-friendly mixed-income communities at Lake City and at Northgate. I’m also the only candidate with an appointive public board position. I serve on the King County Board of Equalization, hearing appeals of property tax assessments. I’m the only candidate with an MBA and with a background in business. I’ve worked for AT&T and for Boeing (for seven years). I combine private sector and non-profit management experience with public service and extensive knowledge of state issues.
5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part of this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?
How can we argue that wealthy individuals and corporations should pay their fair share, meaning they pay more than they get back, when we don’t expect the wealthiest county in the state to do the same? There are several counties that cannot perform the basic functions of county government, as required by law, without substantial state assistance. Does that mean the other counties should have fewer requirements?
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. I will fight for my district to get its fair share of transportation funds to maintain State Road 522, otherwise known as Lake City Way/Bothell Way, because it is a state highway carrying far more heavy truck traffic than before tolling began on the 520 bridge. The town of Kenmore, with 22,000 residents, is being forced to pay $68 million in road repairs on its “main street” that should be the state’s responsibility. The state is paying for the 520 bridge and most of the Hwy. 99 tunnel. When it comes to funding education and social services, two of the state’s top responsibilities, why is it inherently better or worse to fund a teacher or a foster children’s case manager in Seattle or in Yakima? In the end we must trust these state departments to allocate their funds on the basis of need, not silos or fiefdoms. (Trust, then audit?) Perhaps the founders of Kentucky and Massachusetts got it right when they named them “commonwealths,” not states. The name emphasizes an idea that has been neglected. We are all in this together.
by Carl Ballard — ,
This piece by Josh Feit about Patty Murray not wanting Super PAC’s in the 1st District race is basically fine. I don’t like Super PAC’s in general, but as long as they exist, I don’t mind them in primaries. But this struck me as particularly odd.
It’s grating enough when Democrats protest finance rules they object to by prescribing a holier than thou approach. Until you can actually reform finance rules, snooty protests just land you in the “L” column when you get outspent or outplayed.
I’m not sure how much it’s snooty to simply ask people to play nice. I like the rough and tumble of a primary, but plenty of people don’t. Still, the larger point is: Democrats, including Patty Murray, passed campaign finance reform. It was difficult and it took a lot of political capital. Then the Supreme Court invalidated it. Now it’ll take a Constitutional amendment or a different Supreme Court to fix things. Is Josh really saying until there’s a Constitutional amendment, Democrats can’t complain about the way things are. Not until they’ve fixed them? What the fuck is that?
by Darryl — ,
Some hours after I posted the Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! there were interesting new developments in the 2012 Presidential race that can be appreciated best visually.
It began with this advertisement from the Obama campaign that had everyone all a-twitter:
David Kurtz at TPM, in particular, is awestruck by the ad:”One for the History Books” he titles a post, and at one point he comparing it to FDR LBJ’s Daisy ad (this one).
Locally, The Stranger‘s Paul Constant expressed some enthusiasm for the ad (his emphasis, not mine):
Holy fucking shit. This is the most brutal attack ad I’ve seen in a long, long time. It minces the hell out of Romney’s offshore fortunes and his record as a jobs exporter (in the private and public sectors). And it makes fun of Romney’s singing voice, turning his version of “America, the Beautiful” into a symbol of his warped view of patriotism
The Romney campaign hit back with an ad that can only be described as pathetic:
The thesis is that by hitting Mitt Romeny hard on the Bain thing, it somehow negates Obama’s “Hope and Change” message of the last campaign. The writers obviously try to confuse Obama, the President, and Obama, the candidate.
For over three years, Republicans have been warning about how President Obama was “changing America into something unrecognizable.” Now, the Romney camp is “warning” America that Obama is just like other candidates.
It is conceivable that this ad actually helps Obama, by defusing the “changing America into something unrecognizable” argument for folks who don’t recognize that campaigns are not the same thing as policy.
The weekend has brought out a plethora of politicos making the rounds on the talk shows, including bulldogs like Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Karl Rove—who has the naked audacity to “warn” Obama about negative campaigning. That’s hilarious!
But of all the interviews, the ones with Romney campaign senior adviser Ed Gillespie are the most interesting.
In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union, Gillespie stated (my emphasis):
“He is going to release them [2 years of tax returns], Candy, we’ve made that clear, and that’s the standard that Senator McCain, Republican nominee in the last election said was the relevant standard. It’s the standard that Senator John Kerry as the Democratic nominee said was the standard.”
First…he really ought to rethink citing the losers of the past two elections as the model. Just sayin’.
Another problem is that John Kerry did not say that was the standard. Gillespie was off by an order of magnitude. Kerry released 20 years of tax returns. So, about that “standard”….
And on NBC’s Meet the Press we get this gem when David Gregory asked about Mitt benefiting financially from Bain even while on leave:
He actually retired retroactively…
Watch the 00:01:57 clip:
The Twitterosphere has gone bananas with the hash tag #retroactively.
I’ll close by pointing out two things.
First, when the Romney campaign has to “explain” the subtly of Romney’s position during the “bad” Bain years by using a five syllable adverb, they’re not just losing the campaign battle, they’re fucking losing their base!
Secondly, I’ll point out again what a precarious position Romney is now in. We know he was drawing a six-figure salary for, apparently, being on leave; for being completely detached from decisions at Bain. But the media smells blood in that—they will relentlessly attempt to unearth evidence that Romney did make some big decisions. And they’ll probably find something.
But even if they don’t, Romney still has the (relatively unexamined) implications found in Gregory’s question: As the owner of and sole shareholder in Bain and other spin-off companies, Romney was at a minimum receiving salary and investment profit from outsourcing, layoffs, liquidations, the offshore tax havens and, apparently, disposal of fetuses.
That he solely owned Bain through 2001 is undisputed fact. It just makes him look like a weasel to absolve himself of all responsibility, while earning millions, because he was on leave. Or retired.&
&retroactively.
by Darryl — ,
Liberal Viewer: FAUX News profanity hypocrisy.
Pap: Republicans bury their heads in the sand on climate change.
Young Turks: Nutjobber Rep. Michele Bachmann, “Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating America”.
NAACP Convention:
Alyona’s Tool Time Award: David Brooks and “Meritocracies”.
ONN: Ron Paul makes campaign stop in whimsical jalopy.
Young Turks: Climate change or just hot weather?
Jimmy Kimmel: Boehner’s tears.
Ann Telnaes: Empowering women with choice and education.
Thom with The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.
Mitt’s Olympic Trial:
Stephanie Miller: A Sarah Palin election sound bite.
Sam Seder: Rick Scott’s vision seems to be “Tuberculosis For Everyone!”
Thom: Do we need the Disclose Act or a Constitutional amendment?
Sam Seder: Ron and Rand’s internet manifesto.
Maddow: “Scott Brown claims Clinton, Biden call him!
Mark Fiore: The Godawful Particle.
Papantonio & Lizz Winstead: Lizz Free or Die.
Ann Telnaes: Boehner gets his health-care facts wrong.
Thom with more Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.
LePage-turner:
Threatening the First Lady!?!
Greenman: Welcome to the rest of our lives:
Thom with The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.
Maddow: Reprieve for Mississippi’s last abortion clinic.
Alyona: Whale Wars.
Young Turks: Obama’s “biggest mistake” during Charlie Rose interview.
Pap and Cliff Schecter on offshore banking scams:
White House: West Wing Week.
Kimmel: This week in unnecessary censorship.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
by Carl Ballard — ,
It’s an absolute disgrace that we still need this sort of thing, but Seattle Center is hosting a health fair this Sunday. If you need any of the services below, you can avail yourself.
As a part of The Next Fifty’s Global Health Month, a Health Fair will be conducted on July 15th, 2012 at Key Arena. The Health Fair will focus on the health of our communities by providing free health services to the general public.
Services include:
Dental
Screenings for diabetes and cholesterol
Vision and hearing
Mammograms
Physicals
Educational programs about nutrition and general health,
Much much more!
by Darryl — ,
I’m going to be generous to Mitt Romney today. But first some context.
As his primary opponents predicted earlier this year, Mitt’s Bain Capitol record is coming back to bite him in the assets. The latest (which probably isn’t really the latest in the few minutes it takes me to write this post) comes from The Boston Globe:
Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.
Here’s the generous part: Mitt’s account may be correct! It very well may be that he left Bain for Salt Lake City, and psychologically detached from Bain, leaving all of the management in the hands of his trusted partners.
I can imagine a departing speech, perhaps held on a yacht in Boston Harbor:
I’ve got an Olympic-sized corruption scandal and fiscal problems to deal with in SLC. So, I’m taking a leave. I’ll have nothing more to do with running Bain through the end of the Olympics. I leave it to you, my trusted friends, to maximize shareholder profits. (And as the only shareholder, I demand it! [forced laugh.]) If you make the shareholder fabulously wealthy, you will be generously rewarded when I move on to my post-Olympic project…. So for now, you have the helm.
(Exit stage right.)
And maybe Mitt lived up to this ideal. There is even some evidence consistent with this account. In some sense, then he shouldn’t be held accountable for decisions made during his leave. Right?
The political problem for Mitt is that, as Kevin Drum points out, the whole thing just looks icky. Denying responsibility for big decisions while at the same time being listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” on multiple SEC filings, makes Mitt look like he is dodging responsibility.
It feels weaselly. Apparently…the buck doesn’t stop with Mitt. (It’s spirited away to a Swiss Bank Account.)
Furthermore, pulling down a salary (even a paltry $100,000) while on leave makes it seem like he was either actively doing something for the company, or skimming without justification.
Either one may be true without tying Mitt to actual decisions (or knowledge of) embarrassing investments and politically damaging layoffs. But, either way, it still looks bad, and people will have to be excused for feeling misled by Mitt.
But here is the deal. I think this Bain thing has left Mitt in a precarious position…and with a much bigger problem.
The problem is that any evidence of decision making at Bain during his leave will make a liar out of Mitt. The evidence so far is good for Mitt. And thousands and thousands of pages of additional documentation may well be released. But proof doesn’t come from negative evidence, so uncertainty will linger.
The flip side is that it will take but one memo, one recording of an invited speech, one email, a telephone recording, or maybe even a handful of disgruntled ex-employees with some personal notes (remember the Veterans who “served with” John Kerry?) to provide a solitary example of Mitt making a major decision for Bain during his leave…and Mitt’s credibility will be decimated.
And worst of all for Mitt, there is a huge incentive to be the first news organization to find it.
The race is on!