Goldy

Finishing up a nine day broadcasting binge, I’m still in free-form mode tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO.

Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly is scheduled to call in from Chicago during the 8PM hour, to give us the old guard, legacy media take on the events at the Yearly Kos convention, and I’ll be taking other YK reports as they come in. Other topics tonight include congressional Democrats caving on FISA, the well-greased global warming denial machine, and why millionaires just don’t feel rich anymore: “A few million doesn’t go as far as it used to.” Poor baby.

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

A few days ago I’d heard from somebody in the Darcy Burner camp that Dave Reichert was preparing to introduce legislation this coming week, adding 26,000 acres along the Pratt River to the Alpine Wilderness Area. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, but it also sounds pretty damn cynical considering Reichert’s poor record on environmental issues, and his lockstep support of President Bush’s anti-wilderness policies. I’d meant to post preemptively, but Reichert’s staff beat me to it, feeding the story to the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly.

The curmudgeonly Connelly was the perfect choice: a nature enthusiast and wilderness advocate who longs for the days when the Republican notion of doing the “right” thing spoke more to rectitude of judgment than ideological correctness, Connelly holds an almost messianic faith in the second coming of moderate bipartisanship. Connelly also has a history of rewarding even the most reprobate Republicans for small steps toward the middle, and Reichert’s folks guessed right that their outreach to him might generate a little positive press. Which makes my failure to preempt Reichert’s announcement, putting it in its appropriate context, all the more disappointing.

For at the same time Reichert makes hay over his move to designate these 26,000 acres as protected wilderness, he refuses to oppose Bush administration rules that would open all two million acres of Washington’s remaining roadless national forest land — and 58.5 million acres nationwide — to road-building, logging, mining and other commercial development.

Rep. Jay Inslee and Sen. Maria Cantwell have introduced bipartisan legislation that would do exactly that, reinstating by law the Clinton-era “roadless rule” that the Bush administration summarily revoked. The House version of the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act has already secured 140 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. But noticeably absent from this list of supporters is the suddenly “green” Dave Reichert.

Connelly kvelled that Reichert “took a bold step to embrace a Republican tradition that has lately been sinking out of sight.” Oy. So after rinsing the vomit out of my mouth, I asked Burner for comment. In response, the campaign sent the following statement:

“My family and I live in modest home outside of Carnation because we enjoy being close to the land. I grew up in rural areas, so a connection to open country is something I feel deep in my bones. Growing up, my dad spent several summers as a park ranger at Mt. Rainier National Park. We lived near the park while he worked to protect those areas so visitors from across the state could come and appreciate the great outdoors.

“I remain committed to conservation and to protecting our environment. Our pristine open spaces are disappearing before our eyes as the Bush administration guts the strong wilderness conservation protections established during the Clinton years. If we do not act now to reverse this situation, much of our wilderness will be lost forever.

“That is why I strongly support HR 2516, Senator Maria Cantwell’s and Rep. Jay Inslee’s Roadless Area Protection Act. Fifty-nine million acres of wilderness across the country are at risk – including 2 million acres in Washington State (accounting for more than a fifth of our National Forests here) – because of rule changes imposed by the Bush administration that amount to a giveaway of public lands to loggers, oil companies and the mining industry. Unfortunately, these are changes that Congressman Reichert seems to support, since he is notably absent as one of the 144 co-sponsors – including a number of Republicans – of this important legislation.

“Now I hear that Congressman Reichert, who is not even sure yet that global warming exists, intends to begin portraying himself as going ‘green.’ He is telling the press that he would like to consider designating 26,000 acres of federal land of the Pratt River Valley a wilderness area. Many in the environmental community would like to see this area conserved and so would I. So I applaud Congressman Reichert for taking a small step in the direction of wilderness conservation.

“But I would also hope that he would join so many of his colleagues in co-sponsoring the bipartisan Cantwell-Inslee legislation. Otherwise, his willingness to consider protecting one small area while threatening 2 million acres elsewhere in the state is the equivalent of focusing on a tree while losing sight of the fact that the forest is being chopped down around you.

“Moreover, I believe strongly that we can not forget to take care of what we already have. Congress must adequately fund the Parks Service so the horrible damage the winter storms did to Mt Rainier National Park can be put on a fast track for repair and restoration. When I am elected, the voters of the 8th District can be sure that conserving our untouched public lands, not just in one location but all across the state, will be one of my top priorities. I will move quickly to ensure that the environmental health of our entire region is preserved and enhanced.”

So before other reporters, columnists and editorialists gush over a minority congressman’s attempt to immunize himself on environmental issues by announcing plans to protect 26,000 acres (a bill he is powerless to push through on his own,) I hope they ask Reichert the hard question of whether he will or will not join Inslee and Cantwell in opposing President Bush, and reinstating roadless rules that would protect 58.5 million acres of pristine forest from commercial development.

PROGRAMMING NOTE:
Joel Connelly will be my guest tonight in the 8PM hour on “The David Goldstein Show.”

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

It’s Yearly Kos-apalooza tonight, with a host of hacks, flaks and would be elected officials calling in from the big progressive blogger convention in Chicago, including The Stranger’s Eli Sanders, blogger and Crosscut editor Dave Neiwert, WA-08 CD candidate Darcy Burner, Oregon US Senate candidate Steve Novick, Idaho US Senate candidate Larry LaRocco, blogger/author/activist David Sirota, blogger/radio host James Boyce, and more!

Nazis and KKK’ers all.

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

WAPO’s Chris Cillizza reports from Yearly Kos, where longtime Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg had some advice for the assembled progressive bloggers:

Think big. As in, big gains for Democrats in both the House and the Senate in 2008. “Do not think conservatively,” said Greenberg during a panel discussion on the impact of Iraq on polling and the coming election. “The idea of a 50-seat-plus majority is real.”

Greenberg wasn’t the only Democratic strategist predicting huge gains. Tom Mattzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org, insisted that a path existed to a 60-seat majority in the Senate after the 2008 election.

Why the rosy predictions?

Because the 2006 election in which Democrats regained majorities in the House and Senate was a “small point along the way,” according to Greenberg, and the data continues to suggest that the political environment is worsening almost daily for Republicans.

In making the case for Rodney Tom, he and his surrogates routinely dismiss Darcy Burner’s ’08 prospects. “She had her run,” state Rep. Chris Hurst smugly told the Seattle P-I, complaining that she “came up short … in what was probably the best year in 40 years to run as a Democrat.” The intended message to Democratic primary voters is two-fold: 1) Burner only did as well as she did because of unusual national trends; and 2) those trends won’t be present in 2008.

Yeah, um, that’s right… Burner went from complete unknown to within inches of victory, simply by riding the Democratic tide. It had absolutely nothing to do with her smart campaign, her relentless hard work, and a force of personality that won over hundreds of passionate grassroots volunteers. I could write dissertations refuting premise number one, but suffice it to say that it is just plain insulting, and I’m not so sure that Tom, Hurst and their buddies would derisively dis Burner like that if she wasn’t, you know, a girl.

But premise number 2 — the heart of the Tom campaign’s critique of Burner — is just flat out refuted by the numbers. Indeed, Greenberg’s polling data suggests a steadily deteriorating political climate for Reichert and his House colleagues:

The Republicans are in trouble – almost as much trouble as they were in 2006. Democrats are not only ahead in the most competitive Republican districts (Tier 1), but they also lead by 3 points in the second tier, less competitive Republican seats, which means there might well be additional Congressional seats at risk beyond the 35. The extent of Republicans’ vulnerabilities suggests that Democrats can take their advantage far into Republican territory in 2008. This pattern that allowed the Democrats to take 30 seats in the last mid-term election could well take Democrats up to 20 in the Presidential, unless confounded by intervening events. There really could be another wave election.

Unlike the Democratic incumbents, Republican members in competitive districts face a range of trends that are working against them, reflected in their deteriorating margin – a 10-point net swing against them since mid-June.

Tom and his boosters imply that Darcy blew it, repeating over and over again that the coming election will be nothing like the previous one, as if that were a fact. But if Tom and Hurst et al are such geniuses at predicting Democratic waves — or the absence thereof — why didn’t any of them run in 2006? By January of last year it had already become obvious to amateurs like me that something BIG was potentially coming in November, yet the DCCC failed to recruit a single experienced candidate to challenge the one-term Reichert.

Compare that to this cycle, with both Tom and Hurst drooling to get into the race after state Rep. Ross Hunter’s ill health knocked him out. If 2008 is gonna be such a tough year for Democrats, why were so many formerly timid Democrats suddenly so anxious to get into the race?

Because they know Reichert is vulnerable. Burner proved it. And now they just want to brush her aside in a cycle they assume will be very good for Democrats indeed.

I’m filling in all week for Frank Shiers, Monday through Friday, from 9PM to 1AM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. More updates from Yearly Kos throughout the night; expected callers include David Sirota and LiberalLucy, who will also give us the latest on the Michigan state senate blocking access to liberal blogs. Later in the show, fellow HA blogger Will comes into the studio to talk transportation and other local issues.

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

I just got an email from a minor Democratic mucky-muck complaining about my playful jabs at Rodney Tom, and warning that I shouldn’t be “interfering” in a local primary. The emailer flattered me by suggesting I had some “influence,” but then went on to chastise me for using it “irresponsibly.” Apparently, my aggressive support of Darcy Burner just “isn’t fair.”

Well, you know what…? Life isn’t fair. And in poking fun at Tom’s early missteps and misstatements, well, that’s kinda the point. We bloggers do have some influence these days, and we almost uniformly intend to use it in support of Darcy. Rodney Tom isn’t our guy, and for a candidate whose primary campaign theme seems to focus almost exclusively on electability, well, that’s not a very good place to be.

Tom’s boosters keep pushing the “Darcy can’t win in November” meme, but the real question mucky-mucks should be asking themselves is whether Tom has a path toward winning in August? Well, he ain’t gonna get any help here.

Oops… almost forgot! I’m filling in all week for Frank Shiers, Monday through Friday, from 9PM to 1AM on Newsradio 710-KIRO.

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

Eric Earling offers up what passes for “insight” over at (u)SP:

Darcy Burner’s campaign actually did a pretty good job of hiding how liberal she actually is during the 2006 cycle. If you paid close attention to her campaign rhetoric and some interviews you could catch the fact she fits right into the netroots. But her campaign did a good job of keeping her on message, for what that was worth. What will happen now that it’s to her advantage to proclaim her liberal, progressive bona fides in order to win a primary?

In 2006 Reichert ran on his own record and against her lack of experience as well as against her position on taxes (one of the few topics about which she actually spilled the liberal beans). What happens when she proudly proclaims her position on health care, foreign affairs, etc. to secure her left flank in the primary season? What kind of ammunition will that provide for November 2008?

See, this is exactly why Republicans consistently lose races on the Eastside and statewide — because they have absolutely no idea where the political center is anymore. Eric’s pal Stefan likes to dismiss bloggers like me as the “nutroots,” as if repeatedly calling us crazy automatically makes it so, and while Eric, to his credit, avoids the puerile pun, he seems to have bought into Stefan’s definition. The right has so relentlessly demonized the word “liberal” over the past couple decades that they have no idea what it means anymore.

Consider Eric’s example of a perceived political minefield facing Burner in the 2008 cycle on the issues of “health care” and “foreign affairs.” Burner wants to bring our troops home, whereas Reichert continues to support the president’s failed policies in Iraq. Just last night Reichert backed the president again by voting nay on a bill that would extend health insurance to children of the working poor. And Burner…?

“Let me be absolutely clear: I would have voted differently. In Congress I will fight to provide health care for all Americans, particularly our children. Not only is expanding the Children’s Health Program the right thing to do, funding most of the increase through a hike in the cigarette tax is something that I know the people of the 8th Congressional District would support.”

Tell me, on these two major issues, which candidate is out of step with the district?

On Iraq, health care, reproductive rights, climate change, gay rights, protecting our wilderness, domestic wiretapping and any number of other hot button issues, Burner finds herself smack dab in the mainstream of 8th CD voters. There’s a reason why the Reichert campaign and their surrogates focused almost entirely on dismissing Burner as just some ditzy girl — if voters had voted on the issues, Burner would have won by a comfortable margin.

Next time Eric wants to provide a little insight into the 8th CD race, he might want to base his analysis on something other than outdated assumptions.

Yup, that’s my daughter Katie, at overnight camp in the Poconos with her Philadelphia cousins, learning how to shoot a rifle. Righties beware: we’re raising a new generation of liberals, who know how to fight back.

I’m filling in all week for Frank Shiers, Monday through Friday, from 9PM to 1AM on Newsradio 710-KIRO.

We’ll be covering the Minneapolis bridge collapse all night long, with frequent updates from CBS News. Also joining me in studio will be two first time candidates, Keri Andrews, running for Bellevue City Council, and Maureen Judge, running for Mercer Island City Council. (And yeah… Maureen is my ex-wife.)

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

When Rep. Dave Reichert cast his Nay vote this evening against the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act, he didn’t just cast a vote against providing health care to millions of American children, he voted directly against the financial interests of Washington state. The bill not only provides health coverage to children in working families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but can’t afford insurance, it also more than doubles federal funds available to Washington state to cover uninsured children. According to a press release from Rep. Jay Inslee:

Until now, Washington and 10 other states were penalized for expanding health insurance coverage to children in families with incomes just over the poverty line before the popular State Children’s Insurance Plan (SCHIP) was enacted in 1997. Since enactment, they’ve had to fight every few years to spend even a fraction of unused federal funds to cover children at this income level. States that didn’t cover these children a decade ago have had no such limitation on the use of federal SCHIP funds.

A permanent fix for this inequity was included in the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act, H.R. 3162, legislation that would provide $50 billion in new funding for SCHIP and Medicare. It was secured last week by U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, when the bill was being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over SCHIP. He, along with U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott, Norm Dicks, Adam Smith, Brian Baird and Rick Larsen, then pressed House leadership to keep the Washington state fix in the bill that was considered on the House floor today.

“It’s been an uphill battle to end this injustice,” said Inslee. “The feds shouldn’t have shortchanged kids in Washington when SCHIP was set up a decade ago.”

The bill passed 225 to 204, no thanks to Reichert and the rest of our Republican delegation, who all voted against the interests of Washington state, and with their President Bush. Keep this vote in mind next year when our editorialists laud Reichert for his “conscience-driven independent streak.”

You know, if you’re gonna send out a fundraising letter slamming your opponent, it might be a good idea to remove you opponent’s name and address from your mailing list:

You can read a PDF of the entire letter here; given the context of this race, it’s kinda hysterical. In a transparently lazy, boilerplate attempt to scare up some contributions, Jane Hague writes fearfully generically about her mudslinging opponent, and warns that the primary election is a “little more than six weeks” away. Only problem is, the primary election is about three weeks away, having been moved this year from September to August, and her opponent… well… it’s hardly fair to say she even has one.

As usual, Hague is running unopposed in the Republican primary, and the Dems were so disorganized this year that they’ve found themselves in the nearly impossible situation of running a write-in campaign against perennial candidate and HA regular, Richard Pope. So all this talk about needing money ahead of the primary to fend off a well-funded campaign of “personal destruction”…? Well, it’s um… what’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh, I know: lies.

If that’s the kind of respect she shows people who give her money, imagine how she treats those who only give her their votes? And why would anyone give money to a candidate so lazy, she can’t even pick up the phone and ask her consultants to write a fundraising letter specific to this year’s campaign? This deserves a thorough fisking.

“My opponent has a long track record of running campaigns that focus less on the issues and more on negative — and often personal — attacks.”

I assume she’s talking about Richard, who has a long track record of running campaigns that pretty much don’t focus on anything, except maybe planting a handful of yard signs.

“I expect outside special interests to spend heavily in an attempt to scare people into voting against me.”

Dollars to donuts, the bulk of Richard’s campaign war chest this year will be spent on the filing fee.

“Sadly, I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion — from what’s already being said to the media and special interest groups — that my opponent has no intention of focusing his campaign on the real differences between us on the issues.”

Again with the “focus” crap. This is what… Richard’s twelfth race in as many years? He runs for a different office every election. Clearly, the man suffers from a debilitating form of political ADD. I wouldn’t worry about his focus.

“It seems clear that my opponent will instead engage in the kind of politics of personal destruction we so often see back in the other Washington.”

Your opponent is “engaged” in a hotly contested primary battle with a write-in candidate. ‘Nuff said.

“I promise to remain centered on a positive vision for the Eastside, but I also must be prepared to respond to any negative attacks made by my opponent.”

Define “negative attacks.” Would that include falsely accusing your opponent of negative attacks he lacks the resources (financial and otherwise) to launch?

“Help me raise the financial resources necessary to respond to an opponent who’s more about degradation and destruction than solving the problems we face.”

“Degradation and destruction”…? Who does she think her opponent is… Osama bin Laden? I’ve got nothing against Richard — and even admit to an odd fondness for the guy — but this is Richard fucking Pope we’re talking about for chrissake! Hague already enjoys a modest $226,546 to zero fundraising advantage over Pope; what kind of addition “financial resources” does she need?

“The bottom line is this campaign is going to be hard fought.”

The bottom line is this campaign is a cakewalk. The bottom line is Hague has needlessly gone on the attack against an opponent who rarely campaigns outside the comment threads of a handful of local blogs. The bottom line is Hague is a liar, shamelessly fleecing her fellow Republicans for money that would be better spent elsewhere.

And the bottom line is, Hague knows that this is the last time she runs unopposed, virtual or otherwise; like the remaining vestige of the once dominant Eastside GOP establishment, she’s frightened for her political future. This campaign isn’t about this campaign, it’s about fattening her larders for 2011, when a host of qualified Democrats will be drooling at the opportunity to take down Hague in her formerly Republican district.

I’m filling in all week for Frank Shiers, Monday through Friday, from 9PM to 1AM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. The 9PM hour tonight features a candidate forum between Bill Sherman and Keith Scully, both seeking the Democratic nomination for King County Prosecutor. At 10PM, noted chronicler of right-wing extremist hate speech Dave Neiwert joins me to discuss noted right-wing extremist hate talker Bill O’Reilly.

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

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. I’m on the air tonight, so I’ll be leaving by the time things officially start, but there will be plenty of other folks with whom to share some hoppy brew and some hopped up conversation.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.