Search Results for: drinking liberally

Normally, I deal with the stupidest of the stupid posts from up here in the northwest over at my other playground, but every once in a while, a special occasion rolls by and it just belongs here at the Ass. This is one of those times. Eric Earling at Sound Politics has completely lost all contact with reality over the past week. First by displaying some world-class hypocrisy by attacking those who criticized Ken Hutcherson, then having a 5-alarm freakout over Jeremiah Wright because of his “bigotry” (psst, Eric, paranoia is not bigotry). Second by still attempting to maintain that the Republicans still have credibility when it comes to national security and Iraq.

I’ll post about Wright after this weekend, but to help with the latter point, here’s a rundown of the recent polling on the war in Iraq. Despite what Earling has convinced himself to believe, public opinion on how things are going in Iraq has not changed over the past few months. The American public still overwhelmingly believes the following:

– The Iraq War was a mistake
– Any kind of “victory” in Iraq is not still possible
– We should withdraw from Iraq within the next year

Somehow, though, Earling still attempts to refute this by linking to this set of polling, which shows that a lot of Americans still buy into the belief that we’re actually keeping a lid on things while our troops our there. Even with that, however, a plurality of Americans still believe that we’re more likely to be attacked by terrorists if we stay in Iraq than if we leave. This is a pretty extraordinary rejection of the GOP propaganda that has been almost universally adopted within the traditional media. And it should be a strong indication that the folks that John McCain is pandering to have become “the fringe” when it comes to Iraq.

With that said, I want to wander through his post and hopefully help our friend from across the aisle wrap his head around this stuff:

Dear Local McGovernites with Modems,

A couple of your blogging comrades were kind enough to enunciate some thoughts at a recent post of mine discussing everyone’s favorite Netroots candidate, Darcy Burner.

Daniel K and thehim, at #1 & 2 as well as #24 & 25 respectively, noted they didn’t quite agree with my take on the matter.

Hey, that’s me! I was kind enough to point out to Eric that his last post indicated some faulty logic on his part. For instance, the unpopularity of the Democratic Congress is not a result of their being too far to the left on the war, but instead is a result of their being too wishy-washy in their opposition to the President on both the Iraq war and his attacks on our civil liberties. I also pointed out to him that Americans trust Democrats more when it comes to Iraq, something even the GOP-leaning Rasmussen Reports has indicated.

thehim in particular, while kindly offering modest praise of my intellect, argued I have it all wrong on the topic of Democrats, Iraq, national security, and this fall’s election.

Certainly, no one can predict the future, but this claim from Earling’s earlier post was several light years out into La-La-Land:

Coming out of the gate talking about Iraq is peculiar given the degree to which the Democratic Presidential nominee isn’t actually going to want to focus on national security issues.

Exactly why would the Democratic Presidential nominee not want to focus on national security issues? Not only do Americans clearly trust Democrats more when it comes to Iraq, but the Republican nominee is openly expressing a desire to continue an occupation that the American public overwhelmingly wants ended. And according to the poll that Eric himself linked to, the American public even thinks that staying in Iraq will actually increase the chance of a terrorist attack. Somehow, I don’t think the Democrats are going to be shy about this topic this year.

Back to the most recent post:

Indeed, he asserted that the public is displeased with the current Congress because Democrats are “not antagonistic enough” in confronting Administration policy toward Iraq.

Exactly, and that’s why Darcy Burner, and a growing number of Democratic candidates are supporting the Responsible Plan, a plan for getting ourselves out of Iraq efficiently and responsibly. And while the netroots certainly like it, the good people in the 8th Congressional District who are understandably frustrated by the fact that they’ve been represented by an empty suit who has brainlessly cheered on the Iraq fiasco for the past 3 years, have good reason to like it as well.

But Earling is only getting warmed up here. This gets much better:

With that in mind, I have a request. Please do encourage all your favored candidates to be more “antagonistic” about Iraq. Please do raise a ruckus to keep them running to the left of the current Democratic Congress, especially on that topic.

Not to go too far above Earling’s head here, but people who want us to leave Iraq to the Iraqis are not “to the left” of the current Democratic Congress. They are those who have a more libertarian view on foreign policy. Principled isolationist conservatives like Ron Paul are sure as hell not “to the left” of the current Democratic Congress. These kinds of “live and let live” views on foreign policy have not been very widespread until recently and it appears that this phenomenon is one that Earling is trying his best to both ignore and mislabel. The occupation of Iraq has re-shaped many Americans’ views on the limits of our military might, and shown the wisdom of taking a more hands-off approach to the Middle East. This is happening not just on the left, but across the political spectrum. In fact, the two candidates receiving the most donations from members of our military in this election cycle have been Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

By all means, as Iraq steadily fades from the eyes of the news media and the public, please make this your issue du jour. Don’t worry, that part where Americans say they aren’t too keen on the “get out now!” strategy is probably just a bad polling sample…or something.

Amazingly, as much of an unpopular disaster as the Iraq War still is, it won’t be the Democrats trump card this year. The economy will be.

Also, you may recall this blogger doesn’t have the warmest feelings for John McCain. Please don’t let that dissuade you from encouraging your candidates to challenge him on Iraq – and all manner of national security issues too for that matter. I think I might like to see that.

I’d love to see it. Especially since the old geezer once again demonstrated how little he knows about what’s happening in Iraq by actually trying to claim that Iran was training Al Qaeda forces. Exactly how does someone who purports to be the “war candidate” and is set to become the Republican nominee for President have such a piss-poor knowledge of what’s actually going on over there? We’re five years into this thing. How does he not know that the Iranians and Al Qaeda are ideologically opposed to each other? How does Earling think that someone with such basic misunderstandings of the region and the players involved is going to solve any of these serious problems?

Lastly, while you’re at it, and if I’m not being too impertinent, could I beseech you to insist that candidates earning Netroots support also run to the left of the current Congress on domestic issues too? Especially on taxes and healthcare. I think that would be bracing, perhaps even cathartic.

Absolutely! If there’s one thing I’ve learned about voters in the 8th District, they’re terrified of universal health care. They love overpaying for prescription drugs. And they really enjoy the thrill that comes with knowing they could lose their life savings because of an illness. It’s so exhilarating!

Thank you for your attention and careful consideration of this request. In the meantime, I remain your faithful and eager antagonist,

My hat’s off to you, sir. Most people as smart as you would have had enough pride to stop doing this to yourself by now.

P.S. If you could accomplish even part of this, I really would be happy to buy you a pitcher or two at a Drinking Liberally gathering in the future. Since I no longer drink (grumble) thanks to family health history, that’s more beer for you!

Any time.

Stop by the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally to meet the local bloggers, and you’ll find that several of us originally hail from Philadelphia… though in fact, I don’t think that any of us technically grew up within city limits. I was 3 years old when my family moved out to the burbs for the usual reasons — better schools, safer streets, a little plot of land — but like most of the region’s natives, even those growing up across the river in New Jersey, I’ve always self-identified as a Philadelphian. We rooted for the same teams, consumed the same media, enjoyed or suffered the same local economy, and relied on “Center City” Philadelphia as our cultural and economic core. Of course, I could be more accurate and cop to growing up in Bala Cynwyd, but that sort of geographic specificity would actually be less useful to most folks from outside the region. Besides, which of the many Philadelphia suburbs I grew up in defines me a helluva lot less than the city these suburbs grew up around.

And so a couple of headlines in today’s Seattle Times op/ed page got me thinking about what I’ve long felt to be one of the greatest weaknesses of my adopted region: its determined resistance to establishing (or admitting to) a regional identity. In a column titled “The Eastside’s edge“, Lynn Varner lavishes praise on the booming economies of Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah and Renton, daring to hope for a “geographic shift of the region’s power center”, while at the same time an unsigned editorial looks less favorably on the city proper, opining “A changing Seattle, and not for the better“.

Uh-huh. This sort of neeter-neeter-neeterism not only does little to encourage the kind of regional “rapprochement” for which Varney claims she hopes, but actually distorts our understanding of the local economy, for the changes taking place both in Seattle and its surrounding suburbs are not only integrally linked, but are actually quite typical of growing metropolitan regions nationwide. Indeed, if not for Lake Washington’s geographic barrier it is likely that much of the Eastside would have been annexed long ago — just as Seattle did to neighboring communities to the North and the South — thus this supposed competition between cities would mostly be taking place within city limits. As if that really mattered.

City lines may determine school district boundaries, tax rates, land use regulations and other errata of modern life, but we are all one metropolitan region with shared cultural, economic, and increasingly, political interests. That Boeing lost that big Air Force tanker contract is a blow to the entire region, not just to the folks on the 767 assembly line up in Everett. If the Sonics sneak out of town in the middle of the night it will be a loss to sports fans throughout Western Washington. Those “music halls, sports stadiums, parks, [and] open space” the Times writes about are enjoyed by families in Ravenna and Renton alike, regardless of where these public amenities are located — hell, I even once ran into Tim Eyman and his Mukilteo-based family enjoying the taxpayer subsidized facilities at Seattle’s Children’s Museum. And then there’s the Times itself, a newspaper printed in Bothell and published by Mercer Islanders, but that still claims the place name “Seattle” in its masthead. We are the world.

Yet folks from around here are more likely to tell you that they’re from Bellevue or Kirkland or Redmond than to admit to being citizens of goddamn Seattle, despite the fact that you old timers all seem to worship the same TV clown and apparently share the same savant-like ability to distinguish between a 737-500 and a 737-600 by the distant sound of its engines. (Not to mention the regional, one-week obsession with hydro races. What’s up with that?) I mean, really… to this 16-year transplant, you natives all look alike.

Let’s be honest, like my home town of Bala Cynwyd, nobody outside of the region even knows how to pronounce Issaquah, let alone cares where it is; hate to tell ya folks, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned, Issaquah is just another Seattle neighborhood. The first step toward working together to solve our region’s problems is self-identifying as one, so let’s drop all this petty localism, recognize our shared interests, and march arm in arm toward achieving a common goal on which we can all agree: kicking the spandex-clad asses of those bike-worshiping, bastards down in God forsaken Portland. Go team.

Really. I’m finally doing the yard work I’ve been putting off for over a year, and I need to borrow a chainsaw. So if you’ll be at Drinking Liberally tonight, and you have a chainsaw you’re willing to lend me, please bring it with you. I promise not to mass murder anybody. (But if I do, don’t worry, Dave Reichert will catch me 18 or so years from now.)

Other than that, consider this an open thread.

On my trip back east last week, I mentioned that I was heading to Philadelphia’s Drinking Liberally with an old high school friend who’d worked in the mortgage industry for most of the past 10 years. We made it down there, met up with Atrios and the rest of their DL crew, and talked a bit about the Big Shitpile, among other things. Over the years, my friend was definitely in the minority as a Democrat in the mortgage industry. In the past, he’s told me stories about meetings where he could do nothing more than shake his head over how much the standard GOP talking points on economic issues were simply treated as a religion there – as a belief system that could not be questioned. He once told me of a conference where a speaker angrily protested against the idea of giving health care to the children of illegal immigrants, as if doing something like that will somehow unravel the delicate balance that keeps our economy going. My friend just got up and checked out the hotel bar.

As we chatted last Tuesday night at Tangiers, we also talked about Jim Cramer, the host of “Mad Money” on CNBC. Networks like CNBC tend to adhere to the free market orthodoxies, and I’ve always assumed that Cramer follows along in that vein. But I shouldn’t have been so sure:

An impassioned and sometimes fiery Jim Cramer, the investing guru and host of CNBC’s “Mad Money,” said Tuesday night that government deregulation was nothing short of a “covert attempt” to eliminate the federal government’s responsibilities to its citizens.

“Do not be fooled by the sirens of laissez faire,” he told a packed audience at Bucknell University’s Weis Center for the Performing Arts in the continuing national speakers series, “The Bucknell Forum: The Citizen & Politics in America.”

“Ever since the (President) Reagan era, our nation has been regressing and repealing years and years worth of safety net and equal economic justice in the name of discrediting and dismantling the federal government’s missions to help solve our nation’s collective domestic woes,” he said. “We call it deregulation … a covert attempt to eliminate the federal government’s domestic responsibilities.”

…

Before embarking on his talk, titled “The Capitalist Citizen and Democracy,” Cramer warned his audience to not be misled by the persona that hosts his popular CNBC program “Mad Money.”

“This is not a ‘Mad Money’ show, nor is this the man you see at 6 and 11 on TV. This is who I really am. And I’m honored to be given a chance to say who I really am and to give you a talk that is heartfelt and is not about entertainment education or making friends and making money,” said Cramer.

Deregulation
He said that deregulation is the equivalent of saying that “private industry will do it better, that volunteers will do it better, that business if left unfettered will produce so many rich people that they will do it better than the government can.”

Even the best of the nation’s private enterprises, Cramer said, citing companies like Wells Fargo, Pepsi, United Technologies, Google, and Costco, can’t meet those demands.

“You, the next generation of corporate and government leaders, should know and understand the limits of what even the best of capitalism and the marketplace can do to promote the general welfare. As future citizen capitalists you must not embrace the unrequited love of the government of the United States for private enterprise,” he said. “Be wise enough to see that government regulation is a necessary evil.”

Atrios remarks:

Perhaps he should put some of those ideas out there a bit more prominently on his cable show.

I’m not a regular viewer of his show, but his remarks certainly betray the fact that he doesn’t say that stuff on his show because his views are seen as blasphemy within the world of economic cable news. And this trend is certainly parallel to the cable news orthodoxies that still write off those who are too stridently anti-war, even though those people have often been much more accurate in their analyses. Many people see Christianity, or more specifically Evangelicalism, as the religion at the heart of the Republican Party. It’s not, and it’s never really been. The religion at the heart of the Republican Party is the belief that government is at its most responsible when it takes responsibility for nothing and becomes a vessel for the empowerment of big business (even if that involves war). That is the orthodoxy that dare not be questioned. Many people today still buy into the lingering divide from the 60s which paints the counter-culture warrior as the irresponsible counterpart to the Cold Warrior, but today the roles are reversed. Those on the right who still see the current geopolitical reality as being a mirror image of those days are the irresponsible ones, unable to come to grips with the fact that the new orthodoxies that arose in the 80s as America de-regulated and became the sole superpower were not an excuse for us to be absolved of any and all responsibility. And this failure has left us with a number of very big problems that the next President will have to fix.

I’m out in the Philly suburbs right now, celebrating my mom’s 60th birthday. Like Goldy, I grew up in this area. It’s always interesting to come back and observe the numerous subtle differences that make this part of the country unique: the food, the accents, the Wawa’s. It’s like being in another country sometimes.

Our whole weekend was rearranged by the NFL playoffs. After the Giants beat the Cowboys last weekend and the Giants were scheduled to play the Packers for the NFC title at 6:30 on Sunday, we moved my mom’s birthday dinner from Sunday night to Saturday night (my dad and my brother-in-law are both huge Giants fans). My wife, a Seattle native, seemed amazed that we did that. Sports just matter a bit more in Philly. This is a city where the main newspaper’s sports section has its own letters to the editor section (see UPDATE). It’s not a place where this argument would work in order to move the pro basketball team to another city.

For the first game yesterday between the Patriots and Chargers, I went out to a bar in King of Prussia with an old high school buddy who I hadn’t seen in over two years. He’s been working in the mortgage industry for most of the last ten years. He’s had a front row seat for the unbelievable disaster that’s currently unfolding. He told me stories of people who went from having million-dollar salaries to being unemployed in less than a year, of a company that hired him that was clearly doing things that were illegal and was eventually indicted, and of an industry that used to be so lucrative, companies could afford to put him up in $500/night hotels and send him to the Grammy’s, but is now losing employees because people can make more as a cashier at Superfresh. Tomorrow night, he’s probably going to join me as I head out to Philly Drinking Liberally and shoot the shit about the “Big Shitpile” with Atrios.

For the late game, I went back to my sister’s place, expecting to see the Packers crush the Giants, but sadly seeing Tom Coughlin’s crew make it into the big game after Brett Favre’s miracle season ran out of gas. Now I have to brace for being the only person at the Super Bowl party rooting for the Patriots. Damn.

This morning saw some bad news. My dad got an email that his old co-worker’s son was the police officer killed in this SWAT drug raid in southeastern Virginia. He was a father of 3, killed by a 28-year-old man with no criminal record who shot through the door because he thought he was about to be robbed for the second time that week. As you might imagine, my dad isn’t quite sure what to make of my strong opinions on the drug war. Many people of his generation are so far entrenched in the mythology that has built up around the supposed dangers of drugs, that they don’t even question the methodology that has grown up over the years to fight it. While my parents saw raising a child out here in the sleepy suburbs of Montgomery County as a way to keep my sister and me from being caught up in the drug culture, it did no such thing. Drugs and corruption are everywhere, even here among the cul-de-sacs and strip malls. And the senseless tragedies that go along with it keep piling up.

UPDATE: In comments Piper says the Seattle Times also has a letters section in the sports page. Thanks for the correction.

At the last Drinking Liberally, somebody asked me how much a post at Horse’s Ass would cost.

To answer, it costs this much:

But from anyone else, it might cost more. FYI.

I stopped by the open house at the Vance Building last night, where a bevy of progressive organizations have set up office, proving there’s camaraderie, if not necessarily safety in numbers. There was free food, always an attraction to starving bloggers, and the halls flowed liberally with booze and schmooze; it was kinda like a roaming, multistory Drinking Liberally, but with a less embarrassing ratio of men to women.

Wandering from office to office, each with their own special interests and their own particular agenda, a common theme arose in regard to expectations for the coming legislative session. It will be a busy two months the various activists and organizers told me, hopefully filled with some small victories on important issues. But the really ambitious agenda — the substantive legislation on issues ranging from tax reform to transportation to publicly financed campaigns and more — well, that would have to wait until 2009.

It was like a Passover seder (but with cheese on the crackers, and potable wine,) as a common prayer arose from the Vance Building last night: “Next year in Olympia.” Next year, I was repeatedly told, after Gov. Gregoire wins reelection, and the Democrats hold or expand their legislative majority, that’s when we can expect a truly progressive agenda. Next year, with the burden of electoral politics temporarily lifted from their shoulders, the Democrats would apparently be free to make progress on some of our most pressing issues.

Of course, a lot of things can happen in a year that can lead to an awful lot of disappointment. Voters don’t always behave the way we expect them to behave, and candidates don’t always run the kind of campaign they should. And even if we manage to keep our unchallenged hold on Olympia, the Democratic leadership there has often proven more bold at maintaining and expanding its majority than actually using it. Finally, even if an emboldened Gov. Gregoire does attempt to leave her mark during a second term, her agenda will necessarily be limited; even the most successful legislative session will leave the halls of the Vance Building scattered with winners and losers.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but if I were tasked with pushing a bill, I’d be pushing it hard in 2008, with the Democratic governor and near legislative supermajority we have now, rather than waiting for some political heaven on earth next year in Olympia. But then, I’ve never been a man of faith.

New Hampshire election officials are predicting record turnout in today’s presidential primary; as of noon EST some districts were already concerned about running out of ballots.

“Turnout is absolutely huge and towns are starting to get concerned that they may not have enough ballots,” [Deputy Secretary of State Dave] Scanlan said. “We are working on those issues. Everything else seems to be going smoothly.”

[…] According to Scanlan, the ballot strain seems to be on Democratic ballots, which suggests that the undeclared voters are breaking for the Democratic primary.

It also suggests that energized Democrats are turning out in greater numbers than their Republican counterparts, following the same pattern we saw in Iowa. I know my righty trolls have long consoled themselves that the GOP’s fortunes bottomed out in 2006’s big blue wave, but if these trends continue through November, 2008 is gonna be an awfully bad year for Republicans up and down the ticket. Say what you want about Obama, but he clearly has the potential to unify his party while attracting independents nationwide. Which Republican candidate can do that?

FYI:
The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight as usual at the Montlake Ale House, and I expect a healthy contingent to show up early to watch the results come in.

Man, I love caucusing. Voting is a solitary affair; you fill out your ballot alone in the voting booth or at the kitchen table, and then turn on the TV to watch the results. But caucusing is a social event; you vote, you argue, you persuade, you horse trade, you vote again… it’s democracy at its rawest and most exciting. Throw in a little beer and it gets even better.

We got a great crowd at the Drinking Liberally caucus last night; 51 patriotic Americans signed in to help show Iowans what to do tonight, and the first round of balloting contained few surprises:

Candidate:	Votes:	Delegates:
John Edwards	20	3
Barack Obama	15	2
Chris Dodd	6	1
Hilary Clinton	4	1
Dennis Kuccnich	2	0
Mike Gravel	2	0
Bill Richardson	1	0
Fred Harris	1	0

And if this were a primary, that’s pretty much were it would have ended — no second guessing, no second chances for those who threw their vote away on a losing candidate. But caucus goers get the opportunity to temper their votes with reality, and move to their second or third choices if their first choice goes bust. A half an hour of drinking and negotiating and more drinking later, and the Dodd camp leverages their initial strong showing into an even stronger one:

Candidate:	Votes:	Delegates:
Barack Obama	17	2
John Edwards	16	2
Chris Dodd	13	2
Hilary Clinton	5	1

So goes Drinking Liberally, so goes the nation: a three-way tie between Obama, Edwards and Dodd. That’s my prediction for Iowa, and I’m standing by it.

The caucus/primary season officially kicks off tonight, one day ahead of Iowa, when the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally holds its first-in-the-nation presidential caucus, 8PM, at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue East. Republicans and Democrats alike are invited to join us for this momentum setting event that will surely set the tone for tomorrow’s better known if Johnny-come-lately Iowa caucuses.

And when the caucusing kicks off, expect me to be firmly in the camp of Sen. John Edwards.

It wasn’t an easy decision, and it was a long time coming, but in the end, when I look closely at the campaigns of those Democratic candidates who have gained any sort of traction with voters nationwide, Edwards is the only one who appears to be running as a Democrat. Delivering a consistent message of economic populism at home and abroad, Edwards is the only front-runner who seems to know what he wants to do with the office, and the only one whose specific proposals on health care, regulatory reform and economic justice seem targeted toward addressing the real issues that ail our nation. While other candidates promise hope or experience or competency, Edwards is the only Democrat truly promising change… and change is what we’ll most desperately need after eight years of a Bush Administration that has left our nation balancing precariously on the edge of abandoning the core values that have long nurtured our democracy and our economy.

Don’t get me wrong, if Obama or Clinton (or Richardson, Biden or Dodd) go on to win the nomination, I will enthusiastically support them; each of the others has much to recommend them, and would be the clear choice over any Republican alternative. But it is Edwards who speaks to me and my vision of a more prosperous, free and just America for all our citizens.

Oh… and the fact that polls generally show Edwards as being the toughest Democrat to beat… that doesn’t hurt him in my book either.

Just a reminder that while our regular Drinking Liberally has been canceled tonight due to the holiday (ie, the Montlake Ale House is closed,) we will be holding special Wednesday night gathering tomorrow, to conduct our first in the nation presidential caucus!

That’s right, tomorrow night, Democrats and Republicans alike are invited to come on over to the Alehouse at 8PM to caucus for your favorite candidate… all caucus rules will apply. My guess? Edwards manages a comfortable win over Obama, with Clinton coming in a distant third.

Stop on by and help us make history.

Why is one always left with the sense of half a loaf from local reporting? Stories will go on for pages, even for days, without ever connecting the dots or providing a true context. They may beg the Big Picture — the overriding trend or practice that might actually make us care; instead we get the Little Picture. Crackers and cheese instead of the prime rib.

On The Times side, today’s banner is about a humble Sammamish vendor who makes fire-resistant t-shirts for the military. Seeking to expand his business from the Army to the Marines, the guy ran into InSport, a big corporation whose megadollars lobbied an “earmark” for t-shirt contracts — can you believe this — without a bidding process. Welcome to our post-Halliburton, no-bid-contract world…although the story doesn’t actually go all Big Picture like that. What we have instead is the reliance on polite talk for corrupt practices: bribes and kickbacks become earmarks and sole-source contracts. I for one would be interested in this guy’s suggestion about what to do, and how he might vote in 2008. Make me care…heck, make him care about the story.

Of course, even relatively tame investigations like this won’t happen under media consolidation, which is set to go forward today despite near-universal opposition at public hearings, in congressional hearings and from anyone with half a brain. In the hmmm dept., the story got A1 treatment from The Times and nary a Top 10 mention from the P-I. For today’s Reader Quiz and the chance to win a trip on the purple streetcar, can you tell me which newspaper is locally owned?

The P-I does, however, wring its hands over the closing of the Crocodile, days after anyone who cares knew about it (or suspected its imminency), the taxonomy of the scoop (I think it was The Weekly this time) somehow escaping the pit-bullish reportorial skills of the newspaper staff: “Word of the closure spread like wildfire Monday through the city’s music blogs…” Oh come on. I told my daughter about this last Thursday. And no mention of the Big Picture here either: The Showbox gets sold, the Croc shuts down. Other than being small crowded venues for up and coming bands but sitting on prime real estate prized by greedy developers, they have nothing in common.

The Times also takes a stab at relevancy with an update on the let-nature-run-its-course theory of disaster management. Dot not connected: Floods are hardly a “natural” occurrence, as The Times itself showed Sunday with the Chehalis debacle. “Flood risk is only going to get worse, scientists say. That’s because of two converging trends: climate change and development…” How about the trends of “insatiable greed” and “self-destructive stupidity”? Too Big Picture…

Finally, we bring you a new feature, inspired by Goldy’s and my debate yesterday, the Local Headline That Ran Elsewhere. Today’s donor is The New York Times, whose lead Business Day coverage, The Price of Growing Fuel, features a Portland brewery owner looking really disgusted at the skyrocketing price of barley. Also pinched by a hop shortage, some breweries are even going out of business, leaving us HAs with lamentably fewer places to cry in our beer. With that, we provide a radio segue only a true aural rebel like Goldy would ever use, to our weekly reminder for Drinking Liberally…Darryl, take it away!!!

Brewster’s blowing the lid off the scandal of the century.

Politicians? Raising money this early? Shocking, I tell you! Simply shocking!

Here we are two years away from the next Seattle city election, and already it appears that Mayor Greg Nickels is raising money and building up his inevitability. Neighbors for Nickels reports a relatively modest $72,493 in its account (as of a Nov. 17 filing with the city). The Mayor Greg Nickels Web site doesn’t play coy, touting, “Re-elect Greg Nickels Seattle Mayor 2009.”

I too was surprised by the “Re-elect Greg Nickels Seattle Mayor 2009” headline. I was also surprised to hear that hookers aren’t in it for the health insurance, or that the sun comes up each morning.

The peculiar new timetable for American politics is that you start raising money for the next election just a few weeks after getting elected. The real campaign takes place right about now in a four year cycle — 18 to 24 months before the actual election. Raise enough money now and line up enough early big names, and by the time a serious opponent gets organized, it’s too late.

There’s nothing peculiar about it. It’s called politics. It’s common for politicians to keep in touch with their supporters through low-dollar fund raisers. Besides, any candidate who is considering running for mayor should decide soon. Last cycle, the media elites whined incessantly that Nickels wasn’t drawing a serious candidate, as if some poor city councilman is obligated to spend a year campaigning only to be creamed in the general election. Nickels’ eventual ’05 opponent, former UW professor Al Runte, was quite comical on the campaign trail. At one of Runte’s many Drinking Liberally visits, I heard him say:

“Hi, I’m Al Runte, and I’m running for Mayor. No really, I’m running for Mayor.”

Media big dogs like Brewster wonder why Nickels is getting an early start to his next campaign. I’m sure that in December of next year, he’ll wonder why no one wants a piece of him. Eventually, somebody is going to connect the dots.

Talking to several people at Drinking Liberally yesterday, there’s a real question of where the local netroots should be headed. A lot of people are glad that the netroots got involved in the Burner-Tom primary (moreso than I was, as I was still undecided if leaning). And there is some discussion of primary challengers to entrenched Democrats in the legislature who aren’t pulling their weight.

Many Seattle Democrats and other Democrats in safe seats aren’t doing their part. It’s not just about liberal issues; most of the caucus from safe seats votes correctly most of the time. But too much of the leadership is coming from some more suburban swing districts. I’m not sure, for instance, why the impeachment resolution had to come from a suburban first term Democrat. I’m not sure why the leader on drug policy reform is a suburban first term Democrat. I’d like the safe Democrats to do more of this, and if they aren’t willing, I’d like to see them replaced.

That said, I’m not as convinced about the netroots’ ability to turn a primary as some people. We’ve still got a fairly small audience, and while we can raise some money, we aren’t enough on our own. We can maybe influence some media, but we’re still only writing to a small number of voters. We’ll also almost certainly be more divided than in a general election contest, as some people will inevitably take the side of the incumbents who got elected for a reason, and more bloggers will stay out.

Finally, there’s the question of who to primary. Ultimately, it would be the choice of whoever is willing to run. But given the problems above, we couldn’t support it if all the deadwood got challenged at the same time. Some will be better candidates, and some will run against worse incumbents.

Dear Supporters,

Last night, I was cited for driving under the influence. I take this charge very seriously and accept full responsibility for my actions.

Today, I want to apologize to all of you, who have supported me since I began this campaign, given me your trust and invested so much of yourselves in this journey.

I am more sorry about this incident that I can express in words. I am also sorry for the impact this will have on you, my supporters. I would never intentionally put others at risk or violate the great trust so many of you have given me.

And I respect the system that will ultimately judge my actions.

I am committed to serving you, the voters and the city of Seattle. I will continue to talk about the issues that matter and why I decided to seek a place on the city council, but not here. Here I accept responsibility and hope you will accept my apology. And I hope I will continue to have your support on November 6th.

Please don’t hesitate to call me at [phone number redacted -Will] if you would like to talk more about this with me. I welcome your call.

Venus

I have family who are in the drug and alcohol rehab business. People who gets nailed for DUI usually go one of two ways. If they take full responsibility for their actions and avoid blaming others, they have a good chance of not reoffending. If they don’t, well, you know the rest of the story.

I talk trash about Dori Monson on a regular basis, but on alcohol and driving, he’s dead on. Drinking alcohol and driving is entirely unacceptable. Getting behind the wheel after drinking alcohol is gambling with other people’s lives. When I’m driving, I don’t drink. At all.

Other people have different rules. At Drinking Liberally, our Tuesday evening get-together, I know for a fact that many of the fellow participants are drinking, and then driving. Maybe it is only one or two beers spread out over an evening, but alcohol affects fine motor skills even when you don’t feel tipsy. Also, DUI stands for “driving under the influence” of drugs or alcohol. “Driving under the influence” doesn’t necessarily mean a .08 blood alcohol level. You can get nailed for less than an “oh eight”, but it is somewhat harder for the state to prove that alcohol was the cause of your impairment.

Drunk driving isn’t a liberal or conservative thing. As one political operative told me back in ’02 on my 21st birthday, “everyone drives drunk, especially in politics.” Drunk driving isn’t taken very seriously in the USA. Other countries, many of them European, take it much more seriously. One of the reasons I’m such a fan of public transportation is that people should be able to go out and party without having to worry about driving home. When I go to Pioneer Square to “tie one on,” I’m usually walking or riding the bus or cabbing it, but that’s because I live close to downtown.

I really care about my friends who drink alcohol and then, sometime later, drive home. It scares the shit out of me, to be frank with you. I don’t want to seem “holier than thou” about it, because I don’t care about being holier than anyone. I just want the people I know to get home safe.