Goldy

“Most people know me as a football player, but I was also in social studies class.”

Introducing Brock Olivo, former University of Missouri football star, and newly minted Republican candidate for Missouri’s 9th Congressional District. Really.

During the last campaign cycle, local Republicans took to criticizing their opponents’ support from Progressive Majority as evidence of some sinister, out of district plot, but really, their most important contribution to any campaign is the kind of hands on candidate training that helps you avoid coming off as a total blathering doofus… like you know, Brock Olivo. (I think Camp Wellstone just found themselves a new training video on how not to conduct an interview.)

Speaking of which, Progressive Majority is bringing Wellstone Action’s Advanced Candidate and Campaign Management School to Federal Way, April 25-27, and a few spots are still available. Click here for more info.

Shit… this guy is fast becoming the Michael Dell of campus shootings…

The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University.

Eric Thompson said his Web site sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide. Another Web site run by Thompson’s company also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself.

“I’m still blown away by the coincidences,” Thompson said Friday. “I’m shaking. I can’t believe somebody would order from us again and do this.”

Yeah… because who’d ever imagine that a hand gun might be used for shooting people? What are the odds?

With President Bush’s job approval ratings consistently hovering around 30-percent, the standard Republican retort is that the ratings of the Democratic controlled Congress are even lower. Of course, there are two parties in Congress, and so it begs the question whether voters are a bit more discerning in attributing responsibility for their profound sense of disappointment…

According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Feb. 8-10, 2008, only 41% of adults likely to vote this November say they would support the Republican candidate running in their congressional district. Fifty-five percent say they would vote for the Democratic candidate.

The current 14-point margin in favor of the Democrats among likely voters is one of the highest Gallup has seen in recent years, along with two others late in the 2006 campaign.

Of course the election is still a long way off, and that margin could fluctuate wildly between now and November, but a similar result during the final days of the campaign would almost surely predict significant Democratic pickups in the House. And with Democrats holding substantial advantages in both voter enthusiasm and party identification (the Republicans lowest score in 20 years,) a second wave election remains a definite possibility.

One of the knocks against Darcy Burner we’ve frequently heard from concern trolls and self-soothing Reichertphiles is that if she couldn’t ride the big blue wave to victory in 2006, she doesn’t stand a chance against the two-term incumbent in 2008, an analysis that purposefully ignores a host of factors working in her favor the second time around. Near parity in name ID, a widening fundraising advantage, shifting suburban demographics, presidential year turnout and potentially long coattails emanating from the top of the ticket all lead me to believe that with or without a wave, Burner will be in a significantly stronger position in November than she was during her 2006 nail biter. And now it seems likely that she’ll have a second chance to ride that wave.

So how much weight does Rep. Dave Reichert carry with his Republican colleagues? Well, you know Rep. Jo Bonner… the guy they gave that coveted Appropriations seat to…?

On Feb. 11, Bonner publicly endorsed Airbus over Boeing for the contract to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of air refueling tankers.

So not only doesn’t Reichert get the pork seat he needs “now”, they give it to someone who just 3 days before publicly endorsed sucking pork out of Reichert’s district. Um… what was that the Seattle Times wrote in endorsing Reichert in 2006?

His goal should be to expand his influence and be a stronger voice for change.

Hey Frank… how’s that working out for you?

Whenever we post anything on the race between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert for WA’s 8th CD, my comment thread fills up, almost without exception, with nasty trolls belittling Burner and her chances this November. But yesterday’s posts were different. Only one comment out of 50 was even remotely trollish, and even at that expressed an uncharacteristic air of resignation…

So I’m going to have to endure at least 2 years of Dumbass Darcy. Yuck.

Now perhaps our trolls are just hopeless romantics, and as such were too busy serenading their sweethearts on Valentines Day to spew their usual bile into the threads. Nah… that can’t be it. No, I’m guessing that despite their rabid readership of this blog they claim to hate, and their obvious dislike of all things both Darcy and Democratic, that air of resignation is real — for even the whackiest of wingnuts can occasionally sense reality creeping up on them, and man, reality doesn’t look too good for the folks on the other side right now.

The typical defense of Reichert has always been an attack on Burner, but the trolls seem to be losing the heart even for that… and why shouldn’t they, as Reichert’s vulnerabilities as a candidate continue to be exposed outside the careful coddling of a Republican majority? But even more discouraging to local R’s must be the dawning realization that Burner isn’t a one hit wonder, and that her 2008 campaign is gonna be at least as competitive as her come from nowhere challenge in 2006.

Reichert’s fundraising numbers suck; he’s lazy and arrogant and unaccustomed to putting the kind of work into campaigning expected in swing districts, even of incumbents. We all know that. But Burner continues to impress, establishing herself as one of only a handful of Democratic challengers to achieve superstar status amongst both netroots activists like me, and the DC establishment.

“Dumbass Darcy”…? Not so much. Indeed according to Congressional Quarterly, Burner has made the list of Top Ten challengers from either party in both total receipts ($874,000 for 7th place) and cash on hand ($607,000 for 5th place.) And she’s one of only four Democrats to make it onto both lists. And, she’s done all that while garnering over 88% of her money from individual contributors (compared to only 59% for Reichert.)

It’s gonna be a tough reelection for Reichert… and even the trolls are starting to admit it.

A hotly contested Republican seat on the House Appropriations Committee will go to Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, rebuffing a desperate plea from a cash-starved Rep. Dave Reichert that “I need a seat now.”

Coming off a disappointing pathetic fundraising quarter in which the two-term incumbent now trails challenger Darcy Burner $607K to $463K in cash on hand, Reichert had hoped an Appropriations seat would fill his campaign coffers with earmark goodies, while bringing home some bacon to hungry 8th CD voters, and argued that he needed the assignment to help secure his slipping hold on the district. Apparently, House Republican leaders don’t think he’s worth saving.

Also jilted in a bid for appropriations was NRCC chair, Rep. Tom Cole, the man Reichert will have to rely on for party cash. We’ll see if Cole, rumored to be miffed at Reichert’s challenge, comes through for Dave in the clutch, the way the NRCC did big-time back in the closing weeks of both the 2004 and 2006 campaigns.

Initiative whore Tim Eyman has so little respect for the government that he routinely refuses to comply with even the most basic campaign disclosure requirements. Back in 2004 I joined a complaint alleging Eyman routinely violated state law by filing late and misleading disclosure reports; Tim eventually agreed to a small fine, and was warned never to let happen again.

Well… he’s let it happen again, this time filing no contribution or expenditure reports for his latest for-profit initiative. Steve Zemke has filed a fresh PDC complaint, and dollars to donuts this costs Tim some money.

House Republicans, pissed at the Dems for planning to vote today on contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, have been disrupting proceedings throughout the day by calling a series of procedural protest votes that do absolutely nothing but eat up time. Childish, huh? Well earlier today Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balert (R-FL) called a motion to adjourn, right in the middle of the memorial service for the late Rep. Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in Congress, forcing members to file out of the service and onto the floor to cast their vote, or risk having the House shut down for the day.

CSPAN provided split-screen coverage of the memorial service continuing, as House members filed into the chamber to cast their votes on this purely obstructionist maneuver. (Hat tip Mother Jones.)

Really… how petty and disrespectful can you get?

And yes, it does matter what the rest of the world thinks about our presidential election.

For the past three years Progressive Majority of Washington has been bringing Camp Wellstone to Seattle, a three-day candidate, activist and campaign manager training program conducted in cooperation with Wellstone Action. And during that time, twelve Camp Wellstone alum have gone on to win public office in Washington state:

• Island County Commissioner John Dean
• South Prairie Mayor Peggy Levesque
• State Representative Marko Liias (21st LD)
• Tacoma Parks Commissioner Ryan Mello
• State Senator, Eric Oemig (45th LD)
• Shoreline City Councilmember Cindy Ryu
• Issaquah City Councilmember Joshua Schaer
• Shoreline City Councilmember Terry Scott
• Snohomish County Councilmember Dave Somers
• Seattle Port Commissioner Gael Tarleton
• Kent City Councilmember Elizabeth Watson
• Shoreline City Councilmember Janet Way

I attended that first, Seattle-area Camp Wellstone back in June of 2005, and I recognize the names of at least two camp mates from the list above: State Rep. Marko Liias and State Sen. Eric Oemig. It was also there where I first met Darcy Burner, who clearly learned an entirely different lesson out of the inspiring session on campaign fundraising. (I learned I didn’t have what it takes to raise the money to run for office. She learned that she did.)

I can’t recommend Camp Wellstone highly enough, but this year Seattle area prospective candidates and campaign managers have an even better opportunity to hone their skills, when Progressive Majority brings Wellstone Action’s Advanced Candidate and Campaign Management School to Federal Way, April 25-27. Slots are limited, so in order to be considered, hurry up and send your resume and/or a letter explaining why you wish to participate, by March 15 to dkelley at progressivemajority.org.

A nominal fee of $150 helps cover the cost of a hotel room and meals during the training; a small number of scholarships are available to low-income or unemployed participants.

You know what irritates me most about Seattle Times editorials? Their tone. Their holier than thou, we know better than you do attitude that seems to permeate nearly everything they write. They don’t discuss, they don’t debate… they just make pronouncements, without feeling the need to ever back themselves up with… what are those things called again? Oh yeah… facts. Take for instance today’s timely editorial on transportation governance reform: “Sound Transit reform deserves the fast lane.”

The Senate Transportation Committee in Olympia has been sitting on a bill that would reform Sound Transit and subject it to voter control. Called Substitute Senate Bill 6772, it is a way out of the muddle, and the committee ought to move it.

Ought they? Really? In that case, might it have behooved you to run this editorial, gee… I dunno… sometime before yesterday’s cut-off for moving the bill out of committee?

Currently, Sound Transit is governed by a board of politicians. All but one are elected — but, like Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, the chairman, they are elected to something else. The result is that this agency, which is spending billions of our dollars, is under no direct voter control. Voters also have no right of initiative or referendum.

Oh no! Sound Transit is governed by a board of politicians! Heaven forfend! And the best way to correct that horror is to replace it with a board of directly elected… um… politicians. And in low-profile, “nonpartisan” races where your buddies in the business community can buy control through huge infusions of cash. At least that way voters can be assured of getting the kind of competent, accountable governance we get from similar directly elected bodies, like you know, the Seattle Port Commission.

The transit-only folks delude themselves if they believe voters killed last fall’s “Roads and Transit” ballot measure because they didn’t want the roads. They do want the roads. And the idea of combining transit and roads was right. Both are needed. The ballot measure failed because the light-rail part was too expensive and created a tax that was too high.

Um… when the Times says voters “do want roads,” and the “measure failed because the light-rail part was too expensive and created a tax that was too high,” they’re basing those assertions on what? Polls? Intuition? Gentle assurances from John Stanton over foie gras and Chateau Lynch-Bages at the Rainier Club? A public opinion fairy they plucked out of their ass?

Yeah, that’s right, Prop 1 failed solely because of the rail portion of the package. All those polls that showed RTID dragging the measure down, and all that opposition from anti-roads advocates like the Sierra Club — that had absolutely nothing to do with Prop 1’s failure. Jesus… talk about deluded.

The bill to which we refer changes Sound Transit into an agency focused on mobility — cars, trucks, rail and buses included. We regret that the bill does not include the rights of initiative and referendum, but at least it creates direct voter control, which is crucial if voters are to approve another tax increase.

No, the bill to which they refer, but don’t bother to explain, essentially eliminates Sound Transit and gives its name and assets to a new, multi-county transportation agency governed by a board of six-figure-a-year commissioners. Sweet.

The other problem is that Sound Transit is a rail and bus agency only, whereas the need is for mobility in general. What is needed is an agency to invest in transit and roads, to satisfy demand for each and extract the most mobility per taxpayer dollar.

Translation: we want to take dollars from rail, use some of the money to paint the words “Rapid Transit” on the sides of buses, and spend all the rest on roads.

The other problem is that the Seattle Times is a daily newspaper only, whereas what is really needed around here is a place where you can get a decent, New York style bagel and some hand-sliced nova. I suppose if we shut down the paper, sink the Blethen’s assets into opening a top-notch kosher deli, and then slap the “Seattle Times” logo on it, that might do the trick.

The Republican minority tried to move the bill out of committee Monday, and failed. It is not even mainly their bill; Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, and the committee chairwoman, is the principal sponsor. Democrats should support their chairman and move the bill toward ultimate approval.

The Republican minority tried to move the bill out of committee, knowing it didn’t have the votes, in a blatant attempt to embarrass Haugen and the Democrats. The unsigned editorialist would have to be a complete idiot not to understand the petty politics behind such a purely procedural maneuver, so I can only assume they were merely being disingenuous. But then, the timing of this editorial, coming one day after cut-off, does suggest total ignorance of the legislative calendar, so maybe I’m being too generous?

Of course the real question here is why the Times is so adamant about demanding “reform” of Sound Transit, an agency that just came through its audits with flying colors, while they remain silent on the issue of reforming the Port of Seattle, an agency so arrogantly mismanaged that it has now become the target of a Justice Department investigation into allegations of criminal fraud? Now that’s what I call “a muddle.”

Within seconds of the polls closing, all the networks and news organizations immediately called the Virginia Democratic primary for Barack Obama, while putative Republican nominee John McCain is projected to be in a neck in neck battle with Mike Huckabee. (According to exit polls, 40% of VA primary voters self-identify as Christian evangelicals. Guess who they’re voting for?)

Obama leads Clinton 62% to 37% with 33% of precincts reporting. It’s 47% to 45% for the other guys.

UPDATE [5:45]:
CNN has called VA for McCain. With 61% reporting, same margins as above.

Once again, the networks stumbled all over themselves calling DC for Obama within seconds of the polls closing… yet so far, no results. (Hmm. Maybe Boss Esser is doing the counting?)

UPDATE [6:20]:
Obama now leads Clinton in VA, 64-35, with 80% of precincts reporting. Still no actual results out of DC, while Maryland polls have been kept open 90 minutes late due to bad vicious weather. I’m headed to DL.

UPDATE [6:33] — Darryl:
NBC News has called DC, MD, & VA for Obama and MD and VA for McCain.

UPDATE [6:55] — Darryl:
McCain takes DC as well. Man…for a “maverick” McCain sure seems entrenched in the Beltway!

UPDATE [7:05] — Goldy:
In the biggest surprise of the night, the Chicago Bulls are leading the New Orleans Hornets 55 to 54, yet Luke Esser has already called the game for McCain with 6:35 to play in the third quarter.

UPDATE [7:40] — Goldy:
The key to influencing Congress is for netroots progressives to seize control of safe Democratic districts. That’s why it is so exciting to see Donna Edwards leading Rep. Al Wynn in the Democratic primary in MD-04. It’s still early — 55-42 with 11% reporting — but it looks awfully damn encouraging.

UPDATE [8:20] — Goldy:
Carl is “horribly bitter” over Clinton’s declining fortunes… as if he needs one more thing to be bitter about.

UPDATE [8:44] — Goldy:
Once again, Obama doesn’t just win, he wins big… 27 point margin in MD, 29 points in VA, 51 points in DC. Has Clinton hired Giuliani’s strategist?

So, how totally unprepared were Boss Esser and his boys on caucus straw poll day?

My friends in the traditional media tell me that initially, the WSRP told them that they wouldn’t have caucus results until sometime in mid March, to which the press corps collectively responded… “What the fuck?” (Though not exactly in those words; we all know that real reporters never swear.) Then, when the state Dems announced that they would report results same-day, the R’s relented and said that they would report by the end of the day too. Only they couldn’t. So apparently, they made the whole damn thing up.

They made the whole damn thing up.

Esser understood that his data was garbage — that’s why they initially weren’t going to report results until March — and yet to keep pace with the Dems he reported “results” anyway, eventually declaring McCain the winner, with 14% of who-knows-what left uncounted… and just in time to change the narrative in the Sunday morning headlines. Esser lied to reporters.

After reading the rules, reviewing the documents and analyzing the data, I am now prepared to categorically state that Sen. John McCain most certainly did not win the Washington state Republican caucus… because there was no Republican caucus, at least not as most people understand the term.

What transpired Saturday afternoon was in fact a straw poll, followed by a delegate selection process that had no direct relationship to presidential preference. Caucus attendees were asked to register at their precinct table, using a form that asks for, but does not specifically require stating one’s presidential preference.

Unlike the Democratic caucus there is no counting and reporting of presidential preference, and no allocation of delegates proportionate to the stated preference of the attendees. There is no time alloted in the agenda for caucus goers to speak on behalf of the presidential candidates, and no opportunity to go back and change one’s preference. After selecting a secretary (and a chairman if no PCO is present) the attendees proceed to nominate and elect delegates and alternates. Nominees are given “a reasonable period of time” to speak on their own behalf, and are required to indicate presidential preference, but there is no requirement that the indicated preference is the same as that stated on the registration form.

Afterwards the caucus officers are required to submit back to the county party a Caucus Report that includes the names and addresses of the elected delegates and alternates, but note that the official form provides no line for reporting the presidential preference of the delegates.

So, on Saturday night, when WSRP Chair Luke Esser disrupted the emerging media narrative of a potential three-state Huckabee sweep, by officially congratulating McCain for “a hard-fought win,” what is it exactly that McCain supposedly won? The delegate count? Hardly, for not only are the delegates not bound to a specific candidate, they weren’t even elected based on presidential preference. (If they were, you’d think they might have included a line for that on the form.) Furthermore, because the state party rules permit county organizations to allocate any number of delegates, as long as they are at least twice the number of precincts, and uniformly apportioned within the county, a precinct delegate from one county might represent a vastly different number of voters (or caucus goers) than a precinct delegate from another, and thus might play a vastly greater or smaller role in ultimately selecting a delegate to the national convention. A statewide precinct delegate count would therefore be an entirely meaningless metric of presidential preference, even assuming it represents presidential preference at all. Which it doesn’t.

To declare McCain the winner of the WA GOP caucus — as Esser has repeatedly done over the past several days — is to imply that he won the most votes, or would ultimately win the most state delegates based on the precinct caucus results, but the raw precinct delegate count as reported by the WSRP directly corresponds to neither. Esser could have reported the results of the straw poll, which would at least have reflected the preference of the caucus attendees. Instead he chose to mislead the media and the public by presenting delegate totals as something they are not.

And in fact, even if precinct delegates were comparable from county to county (and they’re not) and do represent a binding presidential preference (and they don’t,) the results released by the WSRP and a smattering of county organizations would strongly suggest that both Huckabee and Paul would earn more national delegates from the caucus process than the putative winner. McCain won big in King County, but apparently lost almost everywhere else in the state. That would give McCain national delegates from maybe two congressional districts while Huckabee and Paul split the remaining seven.

Of course, I don’t need to explain any of this to Boss Esser — he understood the process better than anybody, and knew that if the precinct delegate totals weren’t totally meaningless they at best predicted the opposite of his Saturday night pronouncement. But the Huckabee “sweep” narrative had to be crushed, and Esser was more than willing to do it. Huckabee’s lawyers can recount all they want; the damage has already been done.