Archives for October 2006

From the Nation Journal’s subscription-only Hotline:

AD WATCH: He Did It
The DCCC is up with a new ad attacking Rep. Dave Reichert [R]. The ad features footage from a speech Reichert made in 5/06. REICHERT (from 5/06 speech): So when the leadership comes to me and says, ‘Dave, we need you to take a vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority, I do it.’ ANNCR: And when they told Dave Reichert to give billions to big oil, he did it. And a vote against cracking down on price gouging, he did it. Three times. Now we know why. Dave Reichert — another vote for Bush’s agenda (Hotline sources, 10/18).

Yeah, um… and this is the same guy the Seattle Times congratulated for having a “conscience-driven independent streak”…?

It’s not like Reichert’s admission was a big secret. I blogged on this speech back in June, as did the Stranger’s Eli Sanders. Video of the speech before the “Mainstream Republicans of Washington” has long been available on TVW. And even fellow Republicans who were there in the room that day roll their eyes and openly laugh at Reichert for admitting publicly — and on camera — what they all quietly understood. State Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45) was in the audience for Reichert’s speech, and just listen to this exchange between me and Toby last night on Podcasting Liberally:

“It was shocking,” Toby said — and it was. But apparently not to Times editorial writer Kate Riley, who in lavishing praise on Reichert chose to stubbornly ignore the congressman’s own explanation of his voting record.

It’s a funny world we live in where the media has grown accustomed to blindly repeating our politicians’ lies, and willfully ignoring their truths.

The No on I-920 campaign just hit the air today with its first TV ad, and I really wanted to share it with you… but Sandeep can’t seem to get into YouTube. So instead, here’s the Yes on I-937 campaign’s new ad:

Apparently, my incredibly foul-mouthed mockery doesn’t do much to hurt my credibility after all, for the same day I called a sitting state senator a "pig fucker" (repeatedly) a bipartisan crowd of reputedly respectable politicos and journalists joined me a our weekly meeting of Seattle’s Drinking Liberally.

We couldn’t quite convince Seattle Times editorial board member Bruce Ramsey to join us on the podcast, but state Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45) proved more foolish. Joining me and Toby in literally naked discourse were Will, Carl, Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Topics of discussion included the Times incredibly mean-spirited and over-the-top attack on Darcy Burner (apparently written by Kate Riley, go figure), the relative irrelevance of editorial board endorsements, Jimmy’s fascinating new political venture Campaigns Wikia, a refreshingly wonkish (though surprisingly entertaining) discussion of tax restructuring and education funding, and Toby’s startling endorsement of a state income tax.

The show is 59:35, and is available here as a 26 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.]

The DCCC hit the Spokane airwaves today in support of Peter Goldmark’s surging campaign against first-term incumbent Cathy McMorris. WA-05 is a supposedly “safe Republican” district the NRCC had no plans to defend, but with multiple polls showing the race within the margin of error — and closing — the DCCC decided to catch McMorris with her pants down just days before the absentee ballots start dropping.

Combined with Goldmark’s spectacular fundraising success (he once again doubled McMorris’s efforts in the third quarter, almost entirely from individual donors,) the DCCC’s media buy now puts this race on a virtually even financial footing. Of course the NRCC could also move money into the district, but with other surprisingly competitive “safe Republican” districts like nearby ID-01 already consuming half million dollar investments, they may just have to gamble that McMorris can hold the seat on her own.

How big is that Democratic wave that’s threatening to sweep the Republicans out of office? Big enough that it’s reaching all the way into the Inland Northwest, where just a few years ago Democrats were thought to be a dying breed. Yet another sign that the number of competitive House races continues to expand as we come closer to the election… and yet another confirmation of the netroots-endorsed, 50-state strategy.

If my righty trolls teased me about my fervent support for Darcy Burner (now locked in one of the hottest races in the nation,) they literally mocked me for aggressively pushing Goldmark. One can’t yet say that the Democrat has the advantage in either of these races, but if one or both win on election night, damn are we gonna have a good laugh at the Republicans’ expense.

And there’s nothing I like better than a good laugh. So please give generously to Darcy and Peter, and help them help us retake the House.

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 hot conversation and ice cold beer as we head into the stretch run of the election season.

We’ll be playing the Mike! McGavick drinking game during his televised debate tonight at 9PM, and I’m told that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales might stop by, along with a number of almost-but-not-quite confirmed guests from both sides the aisle. Should be a lot of fun.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. Here’s a full run down of WA’s ten Drinking Liberally chapters:

	Where:	When:	Next Meeting:
Burien:	Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd St	Fourth Wednesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	October 25
Kirkland:	Valhalla Bar & Grill, 8544 122nd Ave NE	Every Thursday, 7:00 pm onward	October 19
Monroe:	Eddie’s Trackside Bar and Grill, 214 N Lewis St	Second Wednesday of each month, 7:00 PM onward	November 8
Olympia:	The Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill, 4611 Tumwater Valley Drive South	First and third Monday of each month, 7:00-9:00 pm	November 6
Seattle:	Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave E	Every Tuesday, 8:00 pm onward	October 17
Spokane:	Red Lion BBQ & Pub, 126 N Division St	Every Wednesday, 7:00 pm	October 18
Tacoma:	Meconi’s Pub, 709 Pacific Ave	on hiatus	on hiatus
Tri-Cities:	Atomic Ale, 1015 Lee Blvd, Richland	Every Tuesday, 7:00 pm onward	October 17
Vancouver:	Hazel Dell Brew Pub, 8513 NE Highway 99	Second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	October 24
Walla Walla:	The Green Lantern, 1606 E Isaacs Ave	First Friday of each month, 8:00 pm onward	November 3

I’d heard about state Sen. Pam Roach’s infamous “Roses” speech on the floor of the state Senate, but I’d never actually heard it before I was emailed this audio clip.

Hmm. Did Roach choose the musical accompaniment herself, or was it added in post-production?

We’ve come to expect political nutcases like Roach as a fact of life, but the wonks tell me that her Democratic challenger, Yvonne Ward, may actually be gaining the upper hand. Go show Yvonne some love.

From a NY Times editorial:

Voters in Ohio can be forgiven if they feel they have been beamed out of the Midwest and dropped into a third-world autocracy. The latest news from the state’s governor’s race is that the Republican nominee, Kenneth Blackwell, who is also the Ohio secretary of state, could rule that his opponent is ineligible to run because of a technicality. We’d like to think that his office would not ultimately do that, or that if it did, such a ruling would not be allowed to stand. But the mere fact that an elected official and political candidate has the authority to toss his opponent out of a race is further evidence of a serious flaw in our democracy.

Yeah, well, nothing would surprise me in Ohio anymore.

It’s curious to note that after pulling out of their House, Senate and gubernatorial races, the Ohio state GOP is focusing its efforts on holding the Secretary of State’s office — you know, the Ohio Republican base.

Makes one wonder why King County Republicans are so determined to make the county Auditor an elected office, huh? No wait… no it doesn’t.

I’ve just faxed the complaint above to the Legislative Ethics Board, and if you think this is over the top or in poor taste, I’d just like to point out in my own defense that I never once mentioned the gender of the pigs in question. (Although believe you me, I’ve heard rumors…)

Am I unfairly casting aspersions? Well, go check out Darryl’s post on Hominid Views about the lying piece of shit robo-call he received on behalf of state Sen. Luke Esser:

Recording: An ethics investigation has been opened against Rodney Tom. Rodney Tom took compensation for days he didn’t work. Rodney Tom has one of the worse attendance records in the legislature. Rodney Tom has missed 84 votes. Again, Rodney Tom is being investigated for ethics violations.

In fact, Rodney Tom is not under any sort of investigation, ethics or otherwise, and Esser knows it. What the robo-call refers to is an informal complaint filed by Esser buddy, contributor and former roommate George Aiton — a complaint that served as the direct inspiration for my own malicious missive. (Go check it out.) All I’m doing is following their lead to its logical conclusion.

Apparently, Esser and Aiton’s idea of “common decency” consists of filing a frivolous complaint against one’s opponent, and then dishonestly inflating it into a full-blown Ethics Board investigation. I know such dirty tricks aren’t unusual for Luke Esser or the WA state GOP, but it speaks volumes to his sense of propriety.

UPDATE:
If you’ve got the money to put into an IE on a robo-call in the 48th LD, feel free to use this script:

Recording: An ethics investigation has been opened against Luke Esser. Luke Esser fucked pigs. Luke Esser is one of the worst pig fuckers in the legislature. Luke Esser has fucked 84 pigs. Again, Luke Esser is being investigated for ethics violations.

I suppose it’s pretty damn low and dishonest to accuse Esser of fucking pigs, but well… somebody did file a complaint accusing him of such, so I guess it’s, um, kosher.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
For those of my readers who are too dimwitted, dense or self-righteously prudish to appreciate this post, I believe this brief dissertation on political parody might be enlightening.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
For your listening pleasure, a recording of Luke Esser’s lying robo-call attacking Rodney Tom. Anybody up for recording my script above?

SEIU president Andy Stern will be stopping by a special Monday night edition of Drinking Liberally, from 5:30PM to 7PM, to talk about his new book, A Country That Works. So please join me tonight at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, for a pint of beer, free appetizers, and some fascinating conversation with one of the modern labor movement’s most influential leaders.

Don’t know who Andy Stern is, or what the letters SEIU stand for? Check out David Postman’s latest post.

On Saturday morning I issued a bold challenge to my readers to double the number of contributors via HA’s Act Blue page from 234 to 468 by the end of October. I challenged you to leverage the power of the netroots — to reach out to your friends and family, and personally ask them to contribute to Darcy Burner and Peter Goldmark.

If only 50 of HA’s thousands of readers respond to my challenge and bring in just five new donors each, we will easily meet our target. If the 234 of you who have already made generous donations bring in only one new contributor each, well… you can do the math for yourself.

Here is what I am asking you to do. I want you to put together a list of like-minded friends and relatives, and I want you to email them and personally beg them to give money to Darcy and Peter. If they say no, ask them again. If they do not respond, I want you to give them a call. I want you to personally plead with them that this election may be our best and last shot at turning our nation around, and that Darcy and Peter will be leaders that will make them proud.

I’m not going to tell you exactly what to write or say; you know these people best, so you are the best person to craft an appeal. But I do want you to set a personal goal

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

The Seahawks won, my beloved Eagles lost, so what better way to both celebrate and mourn then to tune in to “The David Goldstein Show” tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: Are we in the midst of a netroots revolution? I’ll be joined by netroots pioneer Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD, and co-author with Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas of “Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grasroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics,” which has just been released in paperback. Armstrong and I will talk about the rise of the Netroots, how they’re transforming the media and the Democratic Party, and what type of impact these strategies are having on the 2006 midterm election. Armstrong is also a top advisor to former VA Gov. Mark Warner, and we’ll be chatting about Warner’s surprising announcement this week that he will not run for president in 2008.

8PM: Who would Jesus evict? For over 40 years a small community of ministers, missionaries and church workers — mostly now retired — have built homes on small residential lots leased from the Cedar Springs Bible Camp. But after a recent takeover of the Camp’s board of directors, local mega-church preacher and McGavick advisor Pastor Joe Fuiten has sought to terminate these leases, and evict the residents. Camp resident Jim West joins me to talk about the resident’s predicament, and how Fuiten and his attorneys have sought to bleed them dry.

9PM: Are you ready to vote? The absentee ballots drop this week, and 80 percent of WA voters will cast their ballots before election day. Tune in for an election round-up, and let me hear about the races and issues that are most important to you.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

UPDATE:
Darcy Burner needs your help! Click here to learn how and why, or simply give a few bucks directly through my Act Blue page.

I suppose I owe the Seattle Times editorial board an apology. Since almost the day I started blogging, from my early, ponytail-in-inkwell-like obsession with WSJ pod-person Collin Levey to my relentless attacks on the board’s relentlessly selfish shilling for estate tax repeal, I have been one of the Times op/ed page’s harshest and most vocal critics.

I have been snide. I have been mean. At times, I have been downright disrespectful. But this morning, while reading the Times‘ endorsement of Dave Reichert, I realized that I had been underestimating the editorial board all along. While bloggers like me have struggled to define our growing role in the emerging new media landscape while eking out a little hard-earned credibility, if not an actual living, the comfortably paid editorial writers at the Times have soldiered on with a self-confidence that can only come from self-awareness. As a blogger, raised in the shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, an era when current events conferred on journalists near heroic stature, I have been slow to grasp a simple truth the Times‘ editorialists have apparently long understood: they are no better than us.

So, I am sorry Seattle Times editorial board… I’m sorry for holding you up to higher standards than you deserve, higher standards than you’ve obviously set for yourselves. I’m sorry for expecting more rhetorical honesty than I would from, say, Stefan. I’m sorry for demanding that you refrain from wallowing in your own self-serving agenda any more than I would demand a pig to refrain from wallowing in his own shit. But mostly I’m sorry that at some level, a tiny part of me still wanted to believe that even on your opinion pages you hold yourself to a higher journalistic standard than the lowest, muckraking blogger.

I apologize.

That said, it is now possible for me to embrace the Times endorsement of Reichert as the unmitigated, lying load of bullshit it really is — a turgidly written, rhetorically dishonest piece of sophistry more fitting to the pages of (un)Sound Politics than to that of a major American newspaper. Once again failing to distinguish between being serious and being solemn, this soporific and stiffly written unsigned editorial displays the intellectual rigor mortis that has come to define the dying newspaper industry.

The Times congratulates Reichert for showing “a conscience-driven independent streak” despite the fact that he has publicly admitted that the House leadership tells him when to vote against them, and they laud Reichert for opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge even though he voted for drilling in ANWR when his vote counted most. The Times points to his experience as a “first-responder,” ignoring his mismanaged, scandal-ridden tenure as Sheriff and his bungling of the Green River Killer investigation, and they highlight his chairmanship of a homeland-security subcommittee… a chairmanship he most definitely will not retain after the coming Democratic sweep.

They claim that Reichert appreciates “nuance,” a word he’d have to look up in the dictionary to spell, let alone define.

How far is the Times willing to go in defense of their endorsement? They even tried to spin one of Reichert’s biggest gaffes into a strength:

He surprised many recently by saying he’s not convinced about how much global warming is caused by human action. We are convinced it’s a substantial contributing factor.

But Reichert says he’s skeptical, so he’s investigating. That’s a better approach than adopting a ready-made ideology.

Global warming isn’t an “ideology,” it’s the scientific consensus for chrisakes! This is the same sort of facts be damned skepticism that freed Gary Ridgeway to go on killing for another 17 years after Reichert dismissed him as a suspect.

But in fact, even the Times has little to say in favor of Reichert, instead spending the bulk of their double-length editorial attacking his opponent Darcy Burner in a surprisingly vicious and dishonest manner.

The Times criticizes Burner’s lack of public service, as if voters are best served by a Congress filled with professional politicians. They belittle her resume and mindlessly repeat NRCC talking points. But what I find most offensive is their blatantly dishonest, one-sided, through-the-looking-glass portrayal of the 8th district race.

Still more disappointingly, Burner has run a mean-spirited campaign that would make Republican spinmeister Karl Rove proud. In The Seattle Times/KUOW-FM congressional debate last week, she accused Reichert of “lying.” She called him “unprincipled” and “politically crass.”

Those charges ring particularly hollow considering one of Burner’s approved campaign ads shamelessly obfuscates the truth about Reichert’s support of veterans funding.

To this there is only one reasonable response: FUCK YOU! As a Democrat I have spent much of the past decade being vilified by the Republicans, being branded as an immoral traitor and a coward, and of being an enemy of the state. I have watched Karl Rove and his cohorts swift-boat a war hero, and morph a patriot who left three limbs on the battlefield into Osama bin Laden.

And the Times has the temerity to tar Burner with the Karl Rove brush? They attack Burner for running a negative campaign when every single mailer and commercial coming out of the NRCC and the Reichert campaign has been an attack ad? This, after Reichert aired an ad that actually fabricated a quote from the Times? Have they no shame? Are they entirely fucking clueless?

I would be more offended… I would be angrier than I am… I would even take back my earlier apology if not for the fact that with this endorsement the Times editorial board has demonstrated once and for all how entirely irrelevant they have become. Sure, they still have a couple hundred thousand readers, but few will manage to wade past the sports section and the comics and the Sunday circulars to get to today’s op/ed page, and fewer still will take this endorsement seriously. The Times incessant shilling for estate tax repeal has so strained its credibility and bored its readers that its endorsements have become more an exercise in narcissism than civic engagement. The vast majority of readers who still bother to read newspaper editorials understand that the opinions expressed by the Times editors are no more well thought out, no more legitimate than, well… mine. And they’re damn less entertaining. Sure, newspapers still have more influence than bloggers, but it’s waning, and they know it.

Which I think helps explain the nasty tone and dishonest logic of this particular editorial, for in attacking Burner they are also attacking us bloggers and the Netroots Movement that helped propel her from a virtual unknown into one of the most hotly contested races in the nation. The Times‘ influence or lack thereof can be measured against their established record of endorsing losing candidates and causes. But a Burner victory would be seen as a huge victory for the netroots, and a clear sign of the growing influence of the barbarian blogger hoards amassing outside the gates of the traditional media.

In this light we can see the Times endorsement for what it really is. It’s not just a defense of the kind of status quo politics they find comforting. It’s not just a defense of a politician they can trust to fight for their pet issue of repealing the estate tax. In some way, at some level, this endorsement can be seen as a defense of the Times editorial board itself.

In such a close election, perhaps what little influence the Times editorial board still has with voters could be enough to swing the victory to Reichert. But if so, it will be a Pyrrhic victory, for by so distorting both the candidates and the tenor of this race to suit their own narrow objectives they have proven themselves to be no more credible and no more relevant than your average, run-of-the-mill blogger like me. And at least I’m not boring.

According to the latest FEC filings, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent $425,000 attacking Darcy Burner… yesterday alone. This brings the NRCC’s grand total to over $1.3 million dollars in WA-08, all of it spent on attack ads.

Darcy could potentially become a victim of her own success. This supposedly “third tier” challenger is now drawing first tier attention from the NRCC, which has made her one of its top ten targets over the past few weeks.

The good news is that this is a clear demonstration of the netroots’ “50-State Strategy” at work. Ten months ago the NRCC wasn’t expecting to spend much money defending Dave Reichert’s seat, but Darcy’s strong challenge has forced them to pull money from other races, leaving the door open for challengers like Peter Goldmark to sneak up on incumbents like Cathy McMorris in Washington’s 5th Congressional District. The bad news is that unless Darcy has the resources to respond, and Peter has the cash to out-flank the R’s out West, both Reichert and McMorris could eke out victories.

That’s where you come in. Darcy needs to raise $500,000 during the month of October to stay competitive, and Peter’s budget requires bringing in about half that. So to help them meet their goals and bring a Democratic majority to Congress, I’m asking you to join me in a bold and innovative fundraising experiment.

Since March, 234 of you have contributed over $17,000 to Burner and Goldmark via my Act Blue page, a truly amazing performance that gives the HA community one of the highest dollar to reader ratios of any blog in the nation. On several occasions I have personally asked you to give to these two campaigns, and you have responded. I promised you that these races would become competitive, and with your help they have.

I am now asking you to make the same sort of personal appeal to your friends and family, not just in Washington state, but throughout the nation. The goal: to double the number of contributions via HA’s Act Blue page between now and October 31.

If only 50 of HA’s thousands of readers respond to my challenge and bring in just five new donors each, we will easily meet our target. If the 234 of you who have already made generous donations bring in only one new contributor each, well… you can do the math for yourself.

Here is what I am asking you to do. I want you to put together a list of like-minded friends and relatives, and I want you to email them and personally beg them to give money to Darcy and Peter. If they say no, ask them again. If they do not respond, I want you to give them a call. I want you to personally plead with them that this election may be our best and last shot at turning our nation around, and that Darcy and Peter will be leaders that will make them proud.

I’m not going to tell you exactly what to write or say; you know these people best, so you are the best person to craft an appeal. But I do want you to set a personal goal — say, 10 new contributors — and specifically ask your friends and family to help you reach your target. I also suggest that you emphasize that any amount will help, even as little as $10.00 — although experience shows that most people will give more.

Finally, I want you to embed in your email the following link — http://actblue.com/page/horsesass?refcode=OctDrive — to facilitate giving, and to keep track of our progress. And if you want, you can replace “OctDrive” with an alphanumeric string of your choice to identify your own efforts, and at the end of the month I will list the fundraising results for each of you. Think of it as a friendly competition.

Darcy and Peter personally reached out to me. I have personally reached out to you. And now you need to reach out to your friends and family and personally ask them to make that final effort to put us over the top this November.

We are counting on you. We are counting on us.

Three different readers forwarded me the same email this morning, originally sent to the Washington State Trial Lawyer Association’s listserv. The email was authored by attorney Stan Rumbaugh, the moderator of KBTC’s public affairs program, The South Sound View, and reproduced here with his reluctant permission.

From: WSTLA EAGLE
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:21 AM
To: WSTLAEAGLE@LISTSERV.WSTLA.ORG
Subject: Re: [WSTLAEAGLE]

Good Morning,

I am doing a series of interviews for PBS on a few of the more contested races. Reichart/Burner, Owen/ Johnson and Roach/Ward are featured. When interviewing Pam Roach for my TV special, all was a little tense. She is clearly a lawyer hater, and arrived at the interview with a list (big one 500+ names for sure) of lawyers who contributed to “her opponent”. The interview went reasonable smoothly, after I assured her that Yvonne had not attempted to directly disparage her during the morning filming of Yvonne’s interview. Pam also knew the interview was live to tape, since everyone cannot be scheduled all in order.

After the interview concluded, I was taping the segue to Yvonnes interview, saying something to the effect of “next, we will hear from Senator Roach’s opposition, stay tuned”. No sooner had the lights gone dark than Pam Roach jumped up, directly in my face, and screamed “you’re a fucking liar, you told me Ward had already been on and didn’t trash me, and now I find out she is coming up next, you are a god damn liar”. Nearly an exact quote.

It was a surreal moment and, needless to say I was a bit put off. The film crew could not believe what they were seeing, and I patiently explained to Pam how TV magic puts taped interviews together. She apologized, and I asked her if she thought she had received a fair chance to respond to the issue oriented questions. She said she had, and I said ok, then that’s it. Goodbye.

On the way out, she again apologized to my producer, and said that she was just so frustrated because her opponent was “such a bitch” that she was not thinking right. In the end, everyone associated with the program (South Sound View) agreed that Pam needed some heavy medication, and had no place in the State Senate with that kind of behavior.

If anyone else is as offended as I am, dig deep and send Yvonne a check for whatever you can afford. Pam Roach is vindictive, and unfit to serve.

Stan

Uh-huh. So if Yvonne Ward is “such a bitch,” what does that make Pam Roach?

Looks to me like the pressure of a dead heat race is beginning to get to Roach. So please help make Roach even more nervous, and give what you can to Democratic challenger Yvonne Ward.