Goldy

It is times like this when I really curse the New York Times for putting it’s columnists behind a paid subscription firewall.

Paul Krugman’s latest column — “Centrism Is for Suckers” — is an absolute must read for those “moderates” in both parties who take issue with the aggressive, take no prisoners partisanship of HA and much of the liberal blogosphere. It is also an important lesson for those independent minded voters who believe they can still afford to pick and choose candidates regardless of party affiliation, at a time when our Republican controlled Congress steadfastly refuses to exercise its constitutional obligation to act as a check and balance on one of the most authoritarian and ruthless administrations in American history.

If you want to understand the state of America today, a good place to start is with the contrast between the political strategies of conservative business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and those of more or less liberal advocacy groups like the Sierra Club.

The chamber recently got into trouble because of ads it ran praising Republican members of Congress who, it said, voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. It turned out that one of the congressmen praised in the ads actually voted against the program, while two others weren’t even in Congress when the vote took place.

Oops. But the bigger question is, aren’t business groups supposed to favor fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government? So why is the chamber praising a program that substantially increases the size of government and has no visible means of financial support?

The answer is obvious: the Bush administration hopes to win some votes in the midterm elections from older Americans now receiving drug benefits, and the chamber, like many conservative organizations these days, believes that its interests are best served by helping Republicans win elections.

[…]

Now compare this with the behavior of advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group, both of which have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club’s executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, “We choose people, not parties.” And it’s true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups.

But while this principle might once have made sense, it’s just naive today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party’s leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee’s personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the “R” after his name.

Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.

Perhaps I’ve already blockquoted more than the Fair Use Doctrine allows, but it would be a worse transgression not to include Krugman’s final paragraph:

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

I for one do not wish to be a “useful idiot” and that explains why I work so hard to elect Democrats — not because I have any particular allegiance to the Democratic Party, but because I understand it is the only way to enact progressive policies while fending off political attacks from the right. This is the political world we live in, and those who ignore the letter next to a candidate’s name on the ballot are ignoring political reality.

I’m not saying this is a good thing — it’s just the way things are.

How scared are Dave Reichert’s folks about facing Democratic challenger Darcy Burner? Scared enough that they conducted extensive polling in June, yet didn’t leak a single drop of data to the media. Scared enough that even the NRCC publicly admits he’s vulnerable. And apparently, scared enough that they’re already running Karl Rove-style push-polls… a full three months before the election.

I’ve heard from three constituents who are just absolutely pissed off about being subjected to a telephone ad campaign masquerading as a political survey… a push-poll clearly designed to pump up Reichert while spreading misinformation about Burner. Push-polling is dirty politics at its worst, but the only thing surprising about Reichert’s efforts is that it comes so early — normally we don’t see these sort of dirty tricks until the final weeks of the campaign.

The caller starts by asking to speak to the “male, voting, head of household,” though the three respondents I’ve heard from are all women. It starts innocently enough with “right direction/wrong direction” questions and stuff like that, but after the respondents say they intend to support Burner, the “ifs” start coming out.

“If you knew that Darcy Burner had voted in only 11 of 22 elections, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner held stock options, including stocks in oil companies and Enron, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner supported using aborted fetuses for medical research, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner wanted to penalize the middle class by raising taxes, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

I probably have the specific phrasing off, as the respondents weren’t taking notes, but all three came away with the clear impression that this was an intentional “smear job” designed to mislead voters about Burners stance on the issues. In fact, one so-called “pollster” was openly apologetic about the biased nature of the questions, whispering into the phone: “I’m just trying to earn a living.”

The firm conducting the push-poll is obviously from out of state — one caller couldn’t pronounce “Issaquah” or even “Reichert”, while another admitted she was calling Texas the day before and another southern state the day before that. No doubt other Democratic challengers are being equally smeared in other districts nationwide by a Republican Party increasingly fearful of the coming purge, and willing to stoop to any level to cling to power.

Unfortunately, one of the things that makes push-polls so popular is that journalists tend to be reluctant to write about them, because there’s rarely a recording to verify the details.

So here’s want I want all of you to do: be prepared. If you think you’re in the process of being push-polled, take detailed notes, or better yet, record the conversation. And if you’ve already been push-polled, drop me an email and let me know so we can corroborate the details as much as possible.

We all expect the Republicans to stoop to dirty tricks in defense of Reichert. But let’s not allow them to get away with it without consequences.

Last night the Senate passed an amendment introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell and Joe Biden, that prohibits the US Government from establishing permanent military bases in Iraq, and from exercising control over Iraq’s oil resources.

Actions speak louder than words. But Sen. Cantwell’s words speak pretty loud too:

“I do not support having a permanent military presence in Iraq,” said Cantwell. “I want our troops home as soon as possible. We need to encourage the Iraqis to take complete control of their own security as soon as possible so U.S. troops can come home. Building permanent bases in Iraq would not get us closer to this goal and it would send the wrong message to the Iraqi people, our allies, and the world.”

Hmm. I wonder if Mike!™ would have voted for this amendment? (I just sent an email off to the campaign asking; let’s see if I get a straight answer.)

Bye.

I’ve spent a lot of time hyping up the Burner/Reichert race in the WA’s 8th Congressional District, which is steadily sliding towards the toss-up category as the election approaches. But as it turns out, Dave Reichert isn’t our only Republican incumbent who should be looking over his shoulders.

Over in the 5th CD (the Eastern half of Eastern WA) Rep. Cathy McMorris is proving to be a lot more vulnerable than her friends in the local media seem ready to admit. Indeed, the latest round of internal polling conducted by Lake Research Partners suggests that this is a winnable seat for Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark… given the financial resources to communicate his message.

Here are the survey’s main conclusions:

• In the initial ballot, incumbent McMorris receives less than a majority of the vote against Goldmark despite a vast name recognition advantage. After both candidates get their messages out, Goldmark pulls into a virtual tie with McMorris
  

  Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

I know there are history buffs who question if Meriwether Lewis actually died by his own hand as the record contends, but after visiting some of the landmarks along the final stage of his epic journey of discovery, I’m not one of them. From Dismal Nitch to Point Distress to Cape Disappointment, I was constantly struck by the depressing names Captain Lewis assigned to places of such natural splendor.

In my absence there has been some speculation over my role in the shareholder lawsuit challenging former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick’s golden parachute. I suppose I should have clarified things the day the story broke, but my dog and daughter and I have been chasing birds in Long Beach the past couple days, mostly out of cell phone range, and entirely without Internet access but for brief morning visits to a local WiFi hotspot. (Long Beach Coffee has great java by the way… but rather spotty Internet service.)

Via Daily Kos, Congressional Quarterly has upgraded the Burner/Reichert race from “Republican favored” to “leans Republican.”

I don’t know whether I’m coming or going. I just got back from Oregon yesterday afternoon, and I’m about to jump in the car and drive down to Long Beach for a couple days.

HA’s Washington D.C. bureau chief tipped me off to the following from today’s issue of Roll Call:

1.2 million Mexicans poured into the streets yesterday — the largest demonstration in Mexican history — supporting leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s election challenge, and demanding a revote in the nation’s disputed presidential election. Yet curiously, our good friend Stefan over at (un)Sound Politics didn’t join them.

Tune in for another jam-packed “The David Goldstein Show” — Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM. Here’s the line-up, but as always, things could change depending on breaking news and guest availability.

I’m out’a here for the weekend, kinda sorta camping, and believe it or not I’ve decided to go sans computer. Darryl has graciously agreed to post in my absence, so please show him a kind, HA welcome, and hurl your insults and death threats at him for the next couple days, not me.

Yet another Johnson has filed to run for Supreme Court, and our friend Stefan seems a touch perturbed, instantly categorizing his candidacy as “bogus.”

Senator John Edwards is committed to helping as many candidates as possible before November. He has already raised $6.65 million for Democrats and attended fundraisers for strong congressional candidates in more than a dozen states this election cylce.

This fall, he will headline fundraisers for two Democrats running for the House who have been selected by our online community. You decide who those candidates will be.

Vote for the candidates who will work hard to build One America that works for all of us. Choose among districts targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.