If you’re wondering why Dave Reichert is so desperate to snag a seat on the Appropriations Committee, it all comes down to supply and demand. Reichert’s looking to the plum assignment as an opportunity to trade influence for campaign cash… something that’s been in short supply for the minority party this election cycle. And whoa boy, is there a lot of demand.
Reichert benefited from a flood of NRCC and RNC money in 2006, and still only managed to just squeak by newcomer Darcy Burner. But in 2008 the GOP has a helluva lot more turf to defend, and a helluva lot less cash on hand. Just take a look at the growing list of open House seats for a good illustration of the Democrats relative advantage:
| Republicans | ||||
| 1. | (CA-52) Duncan Hunter | March 20, 2007 | ||
| 2. | (IL-18) Ray LaHood | July 27, 2007 | ||
| 3. | (MS-03) Chip Pickering | August 16, 2007 | ||
| 4. | (OH-15) Deborah Pryce | August 16, 2007 | ||
| 5. | (IL-14) Dennis Hastert * | August 17, 2007 | ||
| 6. | (AZ-01) Rick Renzi | August 23, 2007 | ||
| 7. | (MN-03) Jim Ramstad | September 17, 2007 | ||
| 8. | (IL-11) Jerry Weller | September 21, 2007 | ||
| 9. | (AL-02) Terry Everett | September 26, 2007 | ||
| 10. | (NM-01) Heather Wilson | October 5, 2007 | ||
| 11. | (OH-16) Ralph Regula | October 12, 2007 | ||
| 12. | (OH-07) David Hobson | October 14, 2007 | ||
| 13. | (NM-02) Steve Pearce | October 17, 2007 | ||
| 14. | (LA-01) Bobby Jindal * | October 21, 2007 | ||
| 15. | (CO-06) Tom Tancredo | October 29, 2007 | ||
| 16. | (NJ-03) Jim Saxton | November 9, 2007 | ||
| 17. | (WY-AL) Barbara Cubin | November 10, 2007 | ||
| 18. | (NJ-07) Michael Ferguson | November 19, 2007 | ||
| 19. | (LA-04) Jim McCrery | December 7, 2007 | ||
| 20. | (MS-01) Roger Wicker * | December 31, 2007 | ||
| 21. | (PA-05) John Peterson | January 3, 2008 | ||
| 22. | (CA-04) John Doolittle | January 10, 2008 | ||
| 23. | (LA-06) Richard Baker * | January 15, 2008 | ||
| 24. | (NY-25) Jim Walsh | January 24, 2008 | ||
| 25. | (FL-15) Dave Weldon | January 25, 2008 | ||
| Democrats | ||||
| 1. | (CO-02) Mark Udall | January 16, 2007 | ||
| 2. | (ME-01) Tom Allen | May 9, 2007 | ||
| 3. | (NY- 21) Mike McNulty | October 29, 2007 | ||
| 4. | (NM-03) Tom Udall | November 10, 2007 | ||
| 5. | (IN-07) Julia Carson * | November 26, 2007 | ||
| 6. | (CA-12) Tom Lantos | January 2, 2008 | ||
(* Seats will be replaced prior to the 2008 election.)
25 open House seats for the Republicans compared to only 6 for the Democrats. And the money disparity is even worse; as of January 22, the DCCC reported over $30 million cash on hand, while the NRCC reported only $2.3 million… an amount equal to what they spent on Reichert alone in 2006. (In fact, the NRCC is sitting on almost $3.4 million of debt, so their balance sheet is actually in the red. Damn.)
If God helps those who help themselves, the same is true of the political parties, and Reichert better help himself to some hefty contributions and quick, if he hopes to stay on an even footing with Burner. Third term incumbents are generally expected to be pumping dollars into NRCC coffers, not sucking money out, and it’s not clear that his party can afford to make his race the same priority they did last time around. Oh… and I’m not so sure it helps Reichert that the man he’s trying to bump aside from the Appropriations seat is the man he’ll have to rely on to cut the big checks, NRCC chair Tom Cole.
It’s shaping up to be a tough year for Desperate Dave and his fellow Republicans.
What are The Darcy’s qualificatons again? Oh…right…she’s a Dem, the only qualification that matters, which means she could be an empty suit and so lightweight that her shoes have to be nailed to the floor to prevent her being blown over by a puff of wind.
Or isn’t that exactly what she is right now?
The Piper
It looks like the Republicans are quitting in droves. They are now the minority party nationwide and less people are identifying themselves as Republicans.
All I can say is: thank you GWB.
You example of corruption, ineptness and cronyism is finally waking people up to what is happening. Extra kudos for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the constant harping on terrorism while failing to go after bin Laden.
Even though we democrats are a disorganized opposition – I like to go back to an old saying:
I don’t belong to any organized political party – I am a democrat.
Piper: Darcy is qualified because in a debate she runs circles around Reichert. The guy knows next to nothing about health care – yet that is what his website touts as his accomplishments (after he opposed the compromise S-chip bill).
what legislation has he sponsored?
he touts himself as an expert on terrorism – what has he done?
He votes in almost lockstep with bush – really – he is a bad fit for the 8th.
Piper… for once and for all, Darcy’s qualifications are that she’s smart, educated, well-informed, passionate, reflective of the values of the district, and an incredibly hard worker… exactly the kind of person you’d want representing you.
Reichert’s career in law enforcement no more prepared him to be a legislator than Darcy’s career at Microsoft. In fact, it probably prepared him less, as evidenced by his undistinguished legislative career thus far.
I believe the founders envisioned a citizen legislature, not one filled with career politicians. And that is why we don’t just appoint the person with the most years in office.
For once, I’d just like to hear Reichert’s boosters actually try to defend him, rather than attack Darcy.
@4
For once, I’d just like to hear Reichert’s boosters actually try to defend him, rather than attack Darcy.
Don’t hold your breath.
Hillary gives cover to white racist Democrats who don’t want to vote for Obama. They always bring up her “experience” as the reason they are voting for her. “Experience is everything,” they say. Notice how silent they are about Darcy’s experience? But they are voting for her anyway. Show me a white person who’s voting for Clinton instead of Obama, and who is also voting for Burner, and I’ll show you a racist.
Don’t overlook the fact GOPers also have to defend 6 or 7 open Senate seats, compared to none for the Democrats. The overall Senate math is nearly as bad for Republicans: 22 seats up for election, compared to 11 for Democrats. And I would imagine keeping the Democrats from getting a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate will be higher priority for them than saving Sheriff Blowdry’s ass! And then you have the changing demographics of the 8th C.D. which is getting more blue-collar every day. Personally, I think Davey is as good as gone.
I figure the GOP will lose 40 – 60 House seats and 6 to 8 Senate seats.
However, their losses might be a lot deeper in the economy tanks.
if
@2 The job is less appealing when they can’t loot the Treasury and take bribes.
@4 “I’d just like to hear Reichert’s boosters actually try to defend him, rather than attack Darcy.”
Never happen, because Reichert’s never accomplished anything worth defending.
About the only thing Reichert’s ever done that might resonate with local voters is vote for Wild Sky, but they don’t want to advertise it because … well … you know … when the only thing a GOP congressman has going for him is one pro-environment vote, well, they hate the environment you know and don’t want to acknowledge that one of theirs actually did something for the environment.
Goldy you’ll never hear a rightie defend the assholes they vote for. All they know how to do is attack. It’s worked in the past because the Dems were too cultured to fight back. Now we see that fighting fire with fire works. The piece of shit republicons have nothing going for them. Big hair is on his way out. And it doesn’t matter if Darcy is qualified. Davie sure wasn’t so at worst, we get more of the same, at best, we get a legislator who isn’t sucking Georgie Bush’s cock.
That 25-6 margin actually understates the GOP/NRCC problem.
Every one of the Democratic seats is safely blue, even without an incumbent. In fact, half of them — Allen and both Udalls — will be open only because the incumbent was popular enough and respected enough to run for the Senate in 2008.
On the other hand, quite a few of the GOP seats will be fiercely competitive. Pryce, Wilson, Cubin, Ferguson, and Walsh barely squeaked by in 2006, and Saxton’s district (where I grew up, FWIW) was a presidential tossup in 2004 and is turning bluer and bluer like most “mature” suburban districts.
Those are the ones I’m pretty sure of. I’ve also heard significant Democratic enthusiasm in Renzi’s, Regula’s, Pearce’s, and Doolitle’s districts.
@4 “Darcy’s qualifications are that she’s smart, educated, well-informed, passionate, reflective of the values the of district”
If she’s all that, why wasn’t she elected in the Democratic year of 2006?
I can only conclude she doesn’t quite reflect the district’s values as much as you might like to think.
@6 “Show me a white person who’s voting for Clinton instead of Obama, and who is also voting for Burner, and I’ll show you a racist.”
I don’t like the human race because too many of you are dorks who hate the environment.
But race has nothing to do with my decision to support Clinton instead of Obama. That decision was based primarily on Obama’s naive believe that he can work with Republicans and unite the country. We need to be realistic — Republicans aren’t going to cooperate with any Democrat or with anything that’s good for the majority of Americans. They want an economic and tax system that screws workers and favors the rich, not health care for all and plenty of good-paying jobs. They’re going to do everything they can to obstruct a Democratic president and congress from fixing the country’s problems (i.e., the problems THEY created), and they’ll obstruct every appointment of a Democratic judge if they can. Obama is being silly. We can’t negotiate with you bastards, and shouldn’t even try. The only way to deal with goatfuckers is to lock them up in a zoo. Hillary understands that. That’s why I’m supporting her instead of Obama; it has nothing to do with race. I would support Edwards if he had a chance, but he’s not in this race.
@6 (continued) Things are now so bad for wingnuts they’re now being forced to play deuces and treys for matchsticks.
@16 Like Goldy says, “This is what desperation looks like.”
N @15,
Charlie Cook rates 9 of the open Republican seats as pure toss-ups. Meanwhile all of the Democratic open seats are rated “Likely Democratic” or better. (There’s a “Lean Democratic” category in between the two.)
So yeah, this post understates the Democratic advantage heading into 2008.
Just a side comment.
Everyone keeps talking about ‘qualifications’. Ah, there are NO qualifications (outside of age/residency) for running for political office. These aren’t doctors or computer programmers who need to have some special technical knowledge. Often politicians are lawyers, but not always. The ONLY qualification is having good ideas. Staff does the actual technical writing and filing, the candidate is just supposed to have the ideas and goals (ideally some initiative and strong will is good). But it’s entirely up to the voters, who they’d like to represent them.
What qualifications did Ronald Reagan have to run California? What was his executive experience in running an organization of over 50 million? None. So what. It was his ideas that won the election, not his legal background (none) or his executive experience in massive organizations (none). What qualifications did Arnold have to be gov of California either? Another moderate actor…no law experience, no executive experience at all. Just a personality with ideas. So if it’s good enough for the Republicans (twice)…so be it.
Roger – I completely disagree with you about Obama not being able to work with the Rebublicans. He’s demonstrated he can do that at the state level, and also at the national level in the short time he’s been there.
The attitude that we have no other choice than neverending partisan bickering is the problem with America and Obama is the best change we will have to end it. Hillary is simply ultra-polarizing partisanship personified and also happens to be the Republicans best and only chance at winning the President’s office in 2008. She would mobilize and motive the Republican base like no other.
But I have no hope for the Democratic party any longer as I’m convince they want to maintain the status quo with another 8 years of polarization.
I am a gay man and as sick of Bush as anyone out there, but if Hillary wins the nomination I will either vote for McCain, Bloomberg or likely sit out the election. I can’t come to vote for another phoney hack that promises everything to everybody and will do and say ANYTHING to get elected.
Another down day on Wall Street today after yesterday’s brief hiatus from the market’s slide, with the Dow down over 170 points at the close. Kinda fun to watch the billionaires get poorer by the day as asset values plunge and paper wealth evaporates — even Bush’s tax giveaways can’t save the greedheads now!
Sourpuss Republicans continually grouse about state taxes, and as predictably as it rains in Seattle in winter, promise tax cuts on the campaign trail. Well, now that legislative Democrats have come up with a tax cut proposals, how are Republicans reacting? By complaining, natch! I swear, those guys whine just to hear themselves!
The Democratic proposal would, in effect, refund up to $470 a year of sales taxes to low-income households. The mechanism of rebate would be a state match of the federal earned income credit (EIC), and would begin to phase out at the $35,000 household income level.
Instead of welcoming relief from the highly regressive sales tax for our state’s poorest families, Republicans want the money to go to property tax relief. That means the owner of a $2 million home would get 8 times as much tax benefit as the owner of a more typical $250,000 home.
This is typical of Republicans, of course. They’re not really against taxes; they’re only against taxes that wealthy people pay. They could care less about people who are having trouble putting food on the table.
The Democratic tax cut plan, by the way, would cost about $120 million a year — roughly equal to the projected cost of Timmie Eyman’s “congestion relief” initiative. In the last few days, I’ve posted several comments about this initiative, the gist of which is to ask what part of the state budget Eyman intends to raid for the $130 million his initiative would cost, as he’s promising voters it will be paid for with existing taxes. The Democratic tax cut plan raises the intriguing possibility of pitting sales tax relief for the poor against Eyman’s ephemeral promises of faster traffic flow on roadways where the basic problem is the number of cars, not whether lights are synchronized.
Guess which side of that contest Eyman and his sycophants, and the GOP and their sycophants, likely would come down on? Hell, we don’t have to guess. We already know their ilk don’t give a rat’s ass about the poor. They would gladly sacrifice a poor kid’s health care or a senior citizen’s nursing home care to get themselves to work 2 minutes faster, if they could get their hands on the money.
For details about the Democratic sales tax rebate plan: http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....it25m.html
@4…Goldy…
“The founders envisioned a citizen legislature, not one filled with career politicians…”
So, can I put you down as being in favor of term limits? And fully in support of ousting some of the rusty nails now in the Democratically controlled, less-popular-than-George-W.-Bush Congress? Like earmark John Murtha? And impeached (by a Democraticly controlled House. Patrick Leahy voted to convict him) Alcee Hastings? How stinky is that cheese?
You still can’t justify The Darcy. Saying, “She’s smart, educated, well-informed, passionate, reflective of the values of the district (Oh? Prove it.), and an incredibly hard worker… exactly the kind of person you’d want representing you,” is meaningless.
I’ll bet she loves her mom and bakes a mean applie pie too.
A lot of people are smart but inept. Take Jimmy Carter…please! A lot of people are well-informed but clueless. So what? A lot of people are passionate. Big deal! Chris Crocker is passionate, so does that make him a viable Congressional candidate?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=c16NYQPV3f4
Come to think of it, Crocker and The Darcy emote on roughly the same level.
Nice that she’s a hard worker, but better that she get a paying gig and focus on her youngster instead of indulging in vanity runs for office.
And someone I would want representing me? Not even in your wet dreams! While The Sheriff isn’t my favorite Republican – oh, to have lived in Buffalo during the days when Jack Kemp represented his district – he has the guts to stand on principle on the Iraq War.
Any idiot can do the momentarily popular thing, but books like Profiles in Courage are written about those who stand tall in the face of withering and shrill opposition, not those who pander to the withering and shrill fund raising efforts of the netroots/DailyKus/MoveOn mouth-foamers of the moment.
The Eighth District is centrist. Is The Darcy? Are you? Are any of the HA Happy Hooligans? Is yours the agenda that Eighth District voters support? While The Darcy kisses your boots, I’m not sure folks in Redmond, the plateau, Issaquah, and Auburn are all that keen on doing the same.
Irony of ironies for you to be high-minded about candidate qualifications since during the last election cycle, you unabashedly supported His Popiness Richard XI (hopefully never to be the XII) solely on account of his party affiliation, new-found convert status notwithstanding. And you did so without shame or reservation.
Granted, the incumbent in that race had more warts than Mrs. Toad, but your shameless pimping of her opponent wasn’t exactly a Profile in Courage for you.
And the flogging of loser Bill Sherman in the KC PA race was based exclusively on party affiliation, something upon which King Counter voters told you to sit.
Face it Goldy, you’re a partisan of the rawest kind. There’s no shame in that, BTW; you have the absolute Constitutional right to be so far left you could never be right. But don’t make yourself out to be a “good government” type touting The Darcy, who’s cut from your bolt of cloth, as, “…exactly the kind of person you’d want representing you.”
Is it good government you want? Or governmental power? There is a difference, you know.
Face it, Empress The Darcy has no clothes. I’d rather support someone who chased down WTO looters and rioters than someone who probably sympathizes with them. I’d rather support someone who’s opposed to abortion on demand and gay marriage than someone who thinks those positions represent the ultimate in government.
I want a congressman who’ll support tax cuts, reduced government spending, an end to earmarks and pork barrel waste, and who’ll be in favor of the strongest possible military and doing whatever it takes to crush international terrorism in its broadest sense.
Which candidate gets me closer to home on these issues? The Sheriff? Or The Darcy who’ll go the other way and whose values are anathema to me?
That the only elective office – assuming it is elective – she’s ever held is in her homeowners’ association and that her only realpolitik experience is winning the fight over which Thai place to order take-out from during a Microsoft project team meeing makes her more suited for a spot on the Redmond Parks and Rec Commission than the Congress of the United States.
But who am I, right? I sit here in the First District stuck with clueless Jay Inslee who supports free TVs for any who can’t afford them! How Jeffersonian is that, eh what? John Miller…where are you now that I need you???
In the meantime, she’s The Darcy to me, and I anxiously await her next Dem Prexy debate fashion expose (“Obama’s shoes were, like, so J.C. Penny while Hillary fills out her suits like the hunk she is! But it’s Johnny’s heat that me squirm…”). That a faux Valley Girl gets your attention and adulation says as much about you as it does about her.
Cyndi Lauper, phone home…The Darcy is on call waiting!
The Piper
All the Republicans are doing is to wait for those trickle down donations to start rolling in.
The way it works, you see, is that the fewer donations you require of corporate donors, the more you wuill collect!
Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
re 26: Congress is unpopular because of the obstructionist Republicans.
’08 will take care of that.
Piper is already deeply into the gin ricky’s this afternoon.
Also in today’s fishwrapper are new revelations of port corruption, adding fuel to a growing firestorm of public anger over how the only major West Coast port that levies port taxes on homeowners spends public money:
“How Port allegedly broke laws, hid costs from public
“By Bob Young and Jim Brunner
“Seattle Times staff reporters
“Mic Dinsmore had a problem. The Port of Seattle … received [only] one bid for one of the largest contracts to build a new runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. And it was 36 percent higher than the Port’s … estimate.
“The solution? … Dinsmore and airport director Mark Reis met with contractor Gary Merlino at a steakhouse near Sea-Tac. Over a drink, they reportedly discussed cutting Merlino’s bid … just enough to keep it below a threshold that would trigger scrutiny …. [I]n the end Merlino’s company was paid the full amount of the original bid ….
“[State] auditors found [t]he … deal … broke state contracting laws; Port staff hid … the contract from the Port Commission; and … the purported … savings … never materialized, with the Port paying Merlino’s … original bid. …
“From the start, the Port’s negotiations with Merlino … were illegal …. State law prohibits negotiating with a bidder before a contract is awarded. …
“Brian Kittleson, a former Merlino vice president and … project manager on the runway work …, said the talks didn’t harm anyone. ‘There was no one that was going to be hurt. If they had a second bidder, they couldn’t have done that,’ Kittleson said in an interview.”
Quoted under fair use; for the complete, sordid, story and/or copyright info see http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....rt25m.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I think the legislature should take immediate action to disband the Port of Seattle, fold its functions into county government, and — because it’s now clear the port wasted more money than it got from taxes, therefore taxes aren’t needed to support legitimate port functions — phase out the port tax over a 2 or 3 year period to give the county time to reorganize port operations and make them self-supporting.
@26
The Eighth District is centrist. Is The Darcy? Are you? Are any of the HA Happy Hooligans? Is yours the agenda that Eighth District voters support?
I’d rather support someone who’s opposed to abortion on demand and gay marriage than someone who thinks those positions represent the ultimate in government.
Sorry, Crackpiper, but a centrist in 2008 is someone who recognizes that opposition to legalized abortion is a fringe view and that gay marriage is not a threat to anyone. You are the crackpot. Darcy is not. This is why she’s going to send Dave Reichert packing in November.
226 “So, can I put you down as being in favor of term limits?”
Funny how Republicans support term limits only when Democrats are in the majority, and when THEY get elected by promising to serve a limited number of terms, they waste no time in breaking those promises. (See, e.g., George Nethercutt.)
I hope Darcy wins but either way it’s going our way BIG TIME.
An empty suit with the breeze blowing between his ears like Reichert only helps us.
I worry more about the Bush Dogs that are compromised by corporate greed than I do about a non-entity like Reichert.
I split my political giving: one half to Darcy and the other half to progressive candidates running against Bush Dogs.
Roger Rabbit @ 6
I think your Senate prediction will be a lot closer to the mark than your House prediction.
I don’t see the GOP losing anywhere near 40 seats, much less 60 seats. Voters kicked out a lot of House Republicans last time in 2006 — more than 30. This time around, I think only the really close seats in 2006 will be in play in 2008 — let’s say the ones where Democrats came within 5% of winning. I don’t see any Democratic House losses to speak of, but I don’t see a massive Republican House loss either. Maybe 15 to 20 seats.
I will predict 4 to 6 Senate seats being lost by Republicans, since there are 22 seats to defend this time around.
A lot depends on who the GOP nominee will be. John McCain and Mitt Romney would be credible and perhaps even victorious — although Romney is lower than his potential in the popularity department right now. Huckabee would be a disaster and Giuliani uninspiring and a potential disaster.
If Barack Obama is nominated, this would draw additional people into the Democratic column. Hillary Clinton would be strong, but she is also polarizing and would galvanize support for the Republicans — even in a worst case scenario for the GOP. There are not enough automatic Hillary haters to clearly deny her the election, but certainly enough to minimize Republican losses in Congress.
In any event, Darcy Burner should be in the top five among Democrats nationwide to pick up a GOP House seat.
I stand by my analysis. Hillary Clinton gives cover to white Democrats who are subconsciously racist.
Husky Stadium Subsidy Quietly Dies
The fishwrapper reports that U.W.’s request for $150 million of state money to renovate Husky Stadium has died (at least for this session) due to lack of support.
Although Speaker Frank Chopp had said he would “consider it,” not a single legislator came forward to support it.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....um25m.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: To put things in perspective, the money requested by the U.W. for Husky Stadium is only slightly more than one year of funding for Timmie Lieman’s “congestion relief” initiative. If we’re going to spend that much money on synchronizing traffic lights, we at least ought to do studies to find out if that would actually move traffic faster, before spending that money because there are plenty of alternative uses for $150 million — if the state has it. For example, helping out U.W., or giving sales tax relief to the state’s poorest families. And I suspect that if we did study it, we’d find the basic cause of traffic congestion is too many cars for the existing road capacity, and that you can’t fix that with the sorts of cosmetic measures suggested by Eyman. But an even larger issue is the bad precedent that would be created by using General Fund money for transportation — which would open the door to raiding revenues from taxes paid by drivers and dedicated to transportation for general budgetary spending. You can bet your ass that if programs funded from sales tax revenues are raided for transportation goodies, various special interests will be immediately galvanized to go over transportation monies for their pet projects.
to go after
@35 Yawn. (fart)
@34 I not only didn’t post #6, I don’t see how you could possibly confuse ME with the idiot who did post #6. Go have another cuppa joe and come back when you don’t need toothpicks to hold your eyelids open, Richard.
@26
I want a congressman who’ll support tax cuts, reduced government spending, an end to earmarks and pork barrel waste, and who’ll be in favor of the strongest possible military and doing whatever it takes to crush international terrorism in its broadest sense.
Which candidate gets me closer to home on these issues? The Sheriff? Or The Darcy who’ll go the other way and whose values are anathema to me?
On tax cuts, Darcy is likely to lower your taxes, while Reichert is likely to lower the taxes of people a lot wealthier than you.
On reduced government spending, it’s hard to imagine Darcy and the Democrats expanding the federal government as much as Bush has (even Reagan expanded it more than Clinton).
Neither one is going to end earmarks and pork barrel waste. Anyone who thinks that either party will do this is delusional.
On having the strongest military, it’s simply not possible for anyone to weaken our armed forces more than Bush and his sycophants (especially Reichert) have over the past 7 years. Our military deterrence capabilities against foreign threats are at their worst point in many decades.
@31…Lee…
Name me one state where gay marriage has been on the ballot where the pro side of that argument won.
And people, even Democrats, are increasingly uncomfortable with knee-jerk abortion on demand and have been for a while. Take Naomi Wolf’s 1995 easy on the moral ambivilance of Democrats on the issue, which itself was reviewed and criticized here:
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~r....._wolf.html
For a recent commentary on how abortion is viewed in the center, center-right, read Steve Chapman’s column from last week here:
http://www.townhall.com/column.....o_abortion
And note the popularity of the Academy Award nominated movie, Juno as yet unseen by me, which has a pro-life message. Curious that it’s being warmly embraced by critics and audiences alike, unlike the anti-Iraq War flicks that audiences are avoiding in droves.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com...../712130303
Don’t confuse your very liberal opinion with that of the mass of the vox populi. When you do, it’s dangersous.
The Piper
@34 “I think only the really close seats in 2006 will be in play in 2008”
I think you’re wrong. I think there’s going to be a massive voter reaction against the last 7 years of Republican lying, corruption, mismanagement, and failure. The good Republicans — if there are any, which is highly questionable — will get thrown out with the bad.
Certainly, Republican candidates themselves sense this, judging from the number who are trying to hide from voters the fact they’re Republicans via various artifices, such as not putting their party affiliation in campaign literature or posturing as “non-partisan” candidates. But the clearest evidence they see a Democratic tsunami coming is politicians and candidates jumping off the sinking GOP ship — yourself and Rodney Tom, for example. In addition, Mrs. Rabbit says she heard on the noon news that two Washington legislators switched their allegiance from the GOP to the Democratic Party today. I haven’t been able to verify that yet, so I don’t know if it’s true, but if it is, these pols obviously did it for self-preservation. Even if this turns out to be a false alarm, I think everyone will agree this year’s political climate is decidedly ugly for GOP incumbents. In summary, I disagree with you; I don’t think 40 to 60 more House seats is out of reach for the Democrats. The fewer jurisdictions that use “black box” voting machines, the more likely it becomes, as it is becoming clearer every day that the Republican “victories” of recent years did not represent voter mandates but rather were manufactured inside computer chips. Take away the crooked voting machines and you also take away the stolen seats.
@41
Name me one state where gay marriage has been on the ballot where the pro side of that argument won.
We’re talking about the 8th District of Washington here. Attitudes towards gay marriage have changed pretty dramatically in the past few years, especially here. Even some of the people who don’t support it are also angry that it’s used as a political cudgel. The fact that gay marriage even matters to you is a sign that you’re on the fringe.
And people, even Democrats, are increasingly uncomfortable with knee-jerk abortion on demand and have been for a while.
Then how come in South Dakota, the state revolted after the Governor tried to ban it?
And note the popularity of the Academy Award nominated movie, Juno as yet unseen by me, which has a pro-life message.
My god, is there any piece of right-wing propaganda you won’t believe? I’ve seen Juno, and it has an anti-choice message in the same way that Weekend at Bernie’s has an anti-cremation message. Did you believe in the tooth fairy until you were in your 40s?
Conservatives often assert that people become wealthy because through their superiority to the rest of us, and even go so far as to claim that poor people are poor because they’re immoral.
(In their worldview, greedy bosses, rigged markets, and dishonest companies have nothing to do with the poverty inflicted on those lacking bargaining power.)
Let’s see how the wingnuts’ theory about the moral superiority of the very rich works in real life:
“New York billionaire faces second teen-sex suit
“By BRIAN SKOLOFF
“The Associated Press
“WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A teenager and her family filed a $50 million lawsuit against a New York billionaire Thursday, saying he sexually abused her when she was 14. …
“The girl, now 17 and identified only as Jane Doe, claims [money manager Jeffrey] Epstein invited her to his Palm Beach mansion in 2005 to perform a massage for $300. She claims he demanded she remove her clothes and sexually assaulted her, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in West Palm Beach. …
“Epstein, 55, is charged with one felony count of solicitation of prostitution. He faces up to five years in prison if convicted. …
“Epstein … also was sued last year in New York by a woman who claims he had sex with her in 2000 when she was 16.”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....uit25.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Undoubtedly our troll friends will waste no time in reminding us that “people are innocent until proven guilty,” a legal principle they apply only to Republicans who invariably turn out to be guilty. It’s a fine principle, and unlike our wingnut friends, I believe it should apply to everyone. I’m not saying this scumbag is guilty — that’s for the courts to determine. All I’m sayin’ is that I predict this case will be quietly settled behind the locked doors of a law firm conference room in the form of a largish check being handed over.
The state House passed a public campaign financing bill for local elections that now goes to the state Senate for consideration. Republicans opposed the bill. http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....5MLG1.html
@17 Sorry RR – I disagree with you here:
“That decision was based primarily on Obama’s naive believe that he can work with Republicans and unite the country. We need to be realistic — Republicans aren’t going to cooperate with any Democrat or with anything that’s good for the majority of Americans.”
Obama isn’t about capitulation to republicans. I have heard this before from Edwards supporters (he is a fighter and Obama is not) or Hilary is tested and Obama is not.
Edwards voted the wrong way on:
Bankruptcy bill
Iraq War
the china trade deal
So I don’t buy the “fighting my whole life for the little guy” stuff. I like Edwards stances NOW but Cheney wiped the floor with him on foreign policy in the VP debate and he voted the wrong way then too.
I also don’t buy the Clinton inevitability or the Obama hhas no substance. Every time I hear the no substance thing – iask the person if they have been to Obamas website – his policy statements on helath care, Iraq and everything are right there.
Clinton has too much baggage, voted the wrong way on Iraq, has too much coporate influence in her campaign and I don’t think playing the race card has helped her standing.
She is an alienating figure and will produce republican resistance. Obama might actually be able to win over republicans but they will never listen to Hilary. She will divide – and Bush was a divider not a uniter too.
Piper: It is irrelevant whether gay marriage is popular with the yahoos or not. The point is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil institution.
It’s not yours or anyone elses place to ‘vote’ away someone elses rights under the constitution.
“Strict Constructionists”, my ass!
@47: Lets just call everything civil unions and get it over with – no more marriages for anyone. Besides – too many marriages are not even civil.
@43…Lee…
@47…grasshopah (an advertisement for the return of DDT)…proves my point.
As he thumbs his nose at the “yahoos,” as he calls Eighth CD voters, he’s clueless that in a centrist political jurisdiction, advocating gay marriage in a way that effectively kicks voters in the collective ‘nads is the hallmark of political genius.
Sort of a reverse triangulation?
There’s a difference between soft-peddling the issue versus trumpeting it as the apex of your agenda.
And try avoiding hanging your hat on the SD vote on abortion of 2006. Most in that state favor restrictions, even outlawing it in many instances, but thought, for a variety of reasons, this was too far.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....-ban_x.htm
It’s always unwise to assume yours are POVs at the center of anyone’s universe other than your own. You ain’t in the middle of the spectrum.
What part of “moderate” escapes your understanding?
The Piper
What part of you avoiding the central issue that the popularity or unpopularity of an issue that is a constitutionally guaranteed right and is not something you can jigger with to politically benefit yourself escaping you?
Piper: You are a demagogue.
Patty Murray had no legislative experience when she ran for Senator, and now she is tough, experienced, and effective (and not coincidentally blows away the various retards the GOP runs against her).
Piper: Your only deeply held conviction is that winning is the main thing.
@52…DL…
You might want to check that out…
Patty Murray served four-years on the Shorline School Board and four more in the Washington State Senate before running for U.S. Senate.
The Darcy served a double-fault when last she played tennis, a very lumpy gravy at Thanksgiving, and PB&Js at her kid’s last sleep-over.
The Piper
@53…Insect…
That’s an assumption on your part. Prove it.
The Piper
@51…Seagull meal…
Telling the truth and destroying hubris equals demogoguery in your lexicon.
You are simply clueless.
The Piper
@47 & 50…You Have the Brain of One…
Please cite authority for your proposition of a so-called “constitutional right.”
May I see the specific textual references in either the Washington State or United States Constitutions, enabling statutes, case law, and other precendent setting or otherwise binding legal authority in support of your position.
Please do not post again until you produce same.
That ought to take care of you!
The Piper
@46 I don’t expect everyone to agree with my endorsement of Hillary. In fact, I don’t expect to change any votes at all. I simply explained why I endorsed her, and you can take that for whatever it’s worth to you.
@46 And, also, to rebut the absurd charge that supporting Hillary equates to not supporting Obama because of his race.
246 (continued) None of these candidates are perfect. That’s why it was a tough decision, and took me a long time to make it.
re57: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Need I say more, twat breath?
@61…FishFood…
Here’s the question I asked: “May I see the specific textual references in either the Washington State or United States Constitutions, enabling statutes, case law, and other precendent setting or otherwise binding legal authority in support of your position.”
You responded with a snippet from the Declaration of Independence? Which has nothing to do with what your promote?
How’s that single-digit IQ working out for you?
Does the institution know you play around on the Internet?
The Piper
Getting back to the original post:
I have to admit that it didn’t occur to me that Reichart’s reason for wanting to get on the appropriations committee was to get campaign contributions. Silly me – I assumed that he just wanted to be in a position to bring in a few earmarks to his district, so he could claim that he actually accomplished something. Apparently I still don’t think in a devious enough manner yet, as do the Republicans.
Maybe I better re-read Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. I haven’t read it since college. That way I can anticipate Republican strategies better.
[DELETED — violated HA “no spoofing” policy]
Roger Rabbit @ 44 More on Jeff Epstein:
“Jeffrey Epstein (born 1953 in Coney Island, New York) is a reclusive American billionaire financier and philanthropist. …
Epstein befriended high profile scientists and politicians such as Leonard Susskind, Dr. Richard Axel, Dr. Gerald Edelman, Murray Gell-Mann, Marvin Minsky and Bill Clinton. …
He is a former board member of Rockefeller University, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations, and a visiting fellow at Harvard University. …
Accusations of child molestation
In 2005, Palm Beach police began investigating underage girls who were working as masseuses and prostitutes. Their investigation led to Epstein. Prosecutors allege Epstein paid several underage girls, one as young as 14, to perform sexual acts on him. Interviews with five alleged victims and 17 witnesses under oath, phone messages, a high school transcript and other items they found in Mr. Epstein’s trash and home show that he knew how young the girls were.
In September 2006, Palm Beach police said in an affidavit that Epstein should be charged with four counts of unlawful sex with minors and one molestation count. In September 2007, various media reported he was about to plea guilty to reduced charges and spend about 15 months in jail.
In a related case, Epstein is being sued by Maximilia Cordero, a transgender model, who claims Epstein forced her into a sexual relationship at the age of 16.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein
@64…
Someone has stolen my moniker and format – stolen my ID – and posted falesely under my name!
Whoever did it is both a coward and a defamatory slime.
Since coming to HA, I’ve used but one moniker, never posted under any other, been outed many times, but I continue to hang in speaking from conviction and in truth. Sad it is that some gutter trash now comes in and poses as me – steals…STEALS AS IN COMMON THIEF…my ID – and posts under my name.
So much for your “integrity” and the validity of any “belief” you might have.
The Piper
Piper: I guess sock puppetry is allowed to lefties. Shucks anything is allowed to lefties.
Postings Diarrhea
Sockpuppetry
racism
factless arguments
Cluelessness – The person and similar postings
a man saying his a rabbit
Don’t be fooled – the republican’s will have plenty of money. It is going to 527 “independent groups like” groups like Forward Washington. This year is going to be nasty.
I love this comment board.
It allows right wingers to reveal their true nature: bellicose, sycophantic, insane.
We on the other side can then mock them mercilessly.
Here comes November…
#41 Piper Scott says:
Let me answer on behalf of Lee.
The diebolds were under republikan control, they rigged the machines.
The republikans handed out flyers for a fake baby killing party so no one showed up to vote.
People did vote for it, it’s the people on the fringe (like you) that don’t understand the results.
Only homophobes voted against it.
Let’s see, I think I covered all the facts. Machine was rigged, republicans tricked the voters, insult the person asking the question, label people that don’t agree with you.
PFool,
The Mittster’s your man. He’s down with the brothers and sisters in the “hood”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FKl3YBFjxg
How white is that shirt? LMAO!!!
re 62: If you can’t see the connection between that phrase from the Declaration of Independence and the moral and legal mendacity you promote by trying to “ban” gay marriage convinces me Piper, that you have a screw loose.
“Marriage” is a religious convention. There is a separation of church and state in the U.S. You have no legal leg to stand on. Your fumferring and demanding that people produce the exact words you want from the source that you specify is an idiotic and childish contretemps that you create for the bemusement of all!!
CluelessIdiot@69: Another reason you are not an Eisenhower Republican. This comment.
CluelessIdiot@71: Where did I say I backed Willard M. Romney?
Link?
URL?
Citation?
Time and Date Stamp?
Who did Puddy say he WOULD vote for?
You are Clueless. Keep up the good work. The American public can see how awesomely stupid you really are!!!!!!!!
Headless Lucy@72: Calling people twats? Cumtwat?
You have no legal leg to stand on.