Eat me, Seattle Times

The civil war in Iraq continues to escalate, with American soldiers caught in the middle. A bomb tore through a crowded Baghdad market yesterday, killing at least 31 and injuring 51 others. At the same time, a marine fighting in Iraq’s Anbar province became the 100th US serviceman killed in October, the highest monthly death toll since President Bush famously announced “mission accomplished.”

Meanwhile, $133 million worth of weaponry has gone missing — nearly 4 percent of the pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other arms the Pentagon has supplied Iraqi security forces. Not that we could track these arms if we wanted, considering that the Defense Department has registered the serial numbers of only 10,000 of the 370,251 weapons it provided — less than 3 percent.

Both these wire stories appeared somewhere in today’s Seattle Times, but apparently neither was important enough to warrant a mention on the op-ed page of the our state’s largest newspaper. Instead, our fair city’s solemn guardians of public discourse chose to dedicate scarce column inches to yet another one-sided, partisan attack: “Denounce the ad, Darcy Burner.

Compare that to the Seattle P-I, who on the very same morning chose to editorialize on trivial matters… you know… like the escalating violence in Iraq.

The president can’t be held directly responsible because he’s not up for election again. Short of impeachment and history’s harsh judgment, he won’t pay the price for a foreign policy folly that has made the world a more dangerous place.

But those who continue to aid and abet him in this disastrous policy are up for election, in just over a week, and voters across the country can and should hold them accountable.

Unless, of course, we want to stay the course.

As the P-I editorialists point out, in this election, “War is the issue“… an issue their colleagues at the Times seem determined to avoid until after election day. Because the Times knows that if voters do follow the P-I‘s advice, Dave Reichert will lose.

That’s why instead of addressing issues that voters truly care about, the Times editorialists are busy focusing on inside horse race bullshit, and rhetorical legerdemain like demanding Burner pull an accurate ad that she did not run.

Deconstruction anyone? Let’s see…

But there is one TV ad benefiting Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner that is beyond the pale, not because of what it says but because it violates a copyright of TVW, Washington’s public-affairs network.

Oh my. In an age when Karl Rove takes a war hero who left three limbs on the battlefield, and morphs him into Osama bin Laden, it’s an alleged copyright violation that the Times finds “beyond the pale.” How shocking.

But the thing is, the DCCC ad doesn’t violate anybody’s copyright. Reichert spoke for about 20 minutes that day, and by any legal definition the few seconds excerpted by the DCCC constitutes “fair use.” I myself have posted to HA longer clips from Reichert’s speech, and I’ve yet to receive any cease and desist orders from TVW. And if I did, I wouldn’t comply.

To argue that the DCCC has violated TVW’s copyright would be like arguing that I have violated the Seattle Times‘ copyright by block-quoting the paragraph above. If that truly represents Times publisher Frank Blethen’s expert interpretation of the “fair use doctrine” then I challenge the Times to sue me now, because I promise you Frank, I’m going to violate your copyright again. And again and again and again. In fact, you know what Frank..? I’m going to violate you again right now:

Burner should denounce the ad and call for its removal.

Take it like a man Frank, and get used to it… because in this new media landscape of excerpts and aggregation, you’re my bitch.

As to the Times‘ admonition that Burner should call on the DCCC to pull the ad, well, either their editorialists are getting their election law advice from the same quack advising them on fair use, or… they’re simply being disingenuous with their readers. (I’m guessing the latter.) Burner can’t call on the DCCC to pull the ad; that would be illegal. The FEC strictly prohibits coordination between campaigns and organizations engaging in independent expenditures, because otherwise the expenditure wouldn’t be, um… independent.

Like their feigned outrage over nonexistent copyright violations, the call for Burner to pull the ad is a red herring. As is the Times‘ tangential reference to the fact that the Burner campaign had ordered a copy of the tape months ago, as the video has been freely available on the internet to all comers since it first aired in May. (I linked to it way back on June 1.)

In fact, the entire editorial is nothing more than an elaborate (if poorly constructed) straw man argument intended to distract from the simple, devastating truth behind the DCCC’s ad: Dave Reichert publicly admitted that the Republican leadership tells him when to vote against them.

The Times refutes this, accusing the DCCC of taking the quote out of context:

The TV ad depicts Reichert at a meeting saying GOP leadership comes to him and tells him how to vote, and he’ll take the vote.

It omits his next line: “There are some times when I say, ‘No, I won’t.’ “

But what the Times omits is the five minutes of rambling preamble in which Reichert puts the disputed quote entirely in context:

I’ll tell you that back in Washington there are lots of games played and I just want to give you, we talk about freedom and we talk about America and we talk about the dream. The dream has to include everybody and there has to be compromise and we can’t have, I’ve been to district meetings in my district where people have said, “why in the world should I vote for you. It’s just like voting for a democrat for crying out loud.” I am going to vote libertarian and I said, “you know what sir, that would be a huge mistake and here’s why.” I’ve tried to explain to this person how things work a little bit back in Washington D.C. and why certain votes have to be taken. Sometimes the leadership comes to me and says “Dave we want you to vote a certain way” and they know I can do that over here. Another district isn’t a problem but over here I have to be very flexible of where I placed my votes. The big picture here is to keep the seat, keep the majority, and keep the country moving forward with republican ideals. Especially on the budget and protecting our troops who’re protecting this country and how that will be responsible with taxpayer dollars. That’s the big picture. Not the vote I place on ANWAR that you may not agree with or the vote that I placed on protecting salmon. You have to be flexible. So when the leadership comes to me and says , Dave you have to vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority, I do it. There are sometimes when I say no I won’t. There are sometimes when things come to the floor like Schiavo. I was one of five republicans that voted with the Democrats on Schiavo because that was the right thing to do.

Yes, Reichert broke with the GOP leadership on the Schiavo vote. He’d personally been through a wrenching end-of-life decision in his own family, and so he says he voted his conscience. (It didn’t hurt that he also voted with his district.) But that’s the only vote of conscience he cites.

Taken in the context of the entire speech, Reichert makes it absolutely clear that conservative Republicans should ignore his handful of moderate votes on things like the environment because “certain votes have to be taken” in order to “keep the seat.” Reichert bluntly (and stupidly) told the audience that the leadership tells him when to vote against them, and that is exactly what his audience of Republican elected officials understood him to say. How do I know? Two of them told me. State Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45) called the confession “shocking,” but went on to explain…

To be clear, by saying “it was shocking” I was expressing the surprise I felt at the time that Rep. Reichert was so open and frank about being approached in this manner, not at the fact that it happened. It is, in fact, quite common for majority party leadership to go to freshman members of their party and provide such guidance, in order to provide cover for those freshmen in their first re-election campaign when they are most vulnerable to challenge. It happens quite frequently in the Washington State House of Representatives, too.

Surely, the Times editorialists understand this. They read my blog. They’ve seen Nixon’s quote. They know how the political game is played.

And yet they continue to defend Reichert’s cynically manufactured image as a “conscience-driven independent,” because they also understand that his reelection hopes pivot on his ability to separate himself in the eyes of voters from President Bush, the Republican leadership and their failed policies at home and abroad.

That is what this latest anti-Burner editorial is all about. The DCCC ad is devastatingly effective because it uses Reichert’s own words to debunk his myth of independence. It also shows up the Times‘ stubborn defense of Reichert’s fictional independence as either stupid or dishonest. (Again, I’m guessing the latter.)

Indeed, the Times incessant Burning-bashing is almost comical in its logic. When Reichert’s media folks aren’t making up quotes out of whole cloth, they rely on single-word quotations like an ad for a bad movie… and yet it’s the Democrats who the Times accuses of lifting quotes out of context. And while Reichert has run a relentlessly negative and at times sexist campaign, it is Burner who Times editorialist Kate Riley accuses of “conjuring rage.” (Curiously, in her unsigned editorial endorsing Reichert, Riley criticizes Burner for her lack of public service, yet apparently believes she’s more than qualified to represent the voters of the 4th CD. Go figure.)

Yes, Burner has attempted to define her opponent through strongly worded TV spots, but then, so has Reichert. No wonder so many readers, bloggers and journalists have found it absolutely impossible to take seriously the Times‘ one-sided, I’m-rubber-you’re-glue, reality-distorted portrayal of this race.

The truth is, the Times doesn’t want their readers to take this race seriously, because if they seriously discussed the issues at stake — the issues that matter most to local voters — Reichert would lose. That’s why instead of editorializing on the Bush administration’s failed policy in Iraq — a policy Reichert has given every indication he would continue to support — the Times has instead chosen to focus on a bullshit, manufactured, campaign ad dispute that voters couldn’t care less about.

Reichert said what he said: he votes the way the leadership tells him to vote. And that is why he’s going to lose this election.

Per Another TJ’s suggestion:
Reichert and Bush


  1. 1

    ArtFart spews:

    12 & 19 Several years back, technical employees of Group Health Cooperative were admonished that it was unacceptable to refer to side-cut pliers as “dikes”.

  2. 2

    thor spews:

    We have TVW. It is not going away.

    The editorial in the Seattle Times today was reactionary and unfair – just like all the stupid TV spots running right now. So the Times lost a lot of its authority today by writing such a bad editorial.

    I think we need to know who asked the staff of TVW to ask the DCCC to take the ad down. That’s an essential piece of reporting on this story that has been sadly missing.

    And perhaps it is not really about taking down the whole ad. Maybe it is about fighting about whether it is fair to use the clip.


    The ad makes a fair point. The overall record of the incumbant is pretty much everything George Bush, Tom Delay and Dick Cheney want it to be, with a few exceptions. Congress wouldn’t even be considering ANWR and Shaivo with different leadership. And stem cells would be a slam dunk. Reichert is running to keep the people in power who bring us things that are way out of step with the priorities of people in the 8th.

    And that may be about all this election is about.

  3. 3

    Richard Pope spews:

    Goldy @ 32

    I don’t think Jim King is trying to present a partisan-based argument against Darcy Burner. Jim simply sees policy reasons why people shouldn’t use TVW footage for political purposes. And historically, for better or for worse, folks just haven’t done that in Washington state politics.

    Still, using TVW footage in political ads seems to be clearly protected by “fair use” — even if it could be argued as going too far, just plain tacky, or violating the rules of political etiquette. There is a difference between “shouldn’t use” and “shouldn’t be able to use”.

  4. 5

    ArtFart spews:

    Roger, let’s get together on this….you build your chrome plating shop next to Frank’s place, Lucy can run a rendering plant on the other side of him, I’ll get together with some folks working with the homeless and we’ll build a tent city across the street, 2nd Amendment Dem can open a skeet shooting emporium (nothing smaller than ten-guage, if you please) and LeftTurn can get a lease for a pilot project running a bunch of trout rearing pens opposite the Blethens’ waterfront.

  5. 6

    Daddy Love spews:


    I think that so far October 2006 is coming in as the month with the FOURTH most deaths in the war. First place is the fighting in Fallujah in November 2004, when 137 brave Americans died, and who knows how many came home missing important limbs. Second is the siege of Fallujah in April 2004 with 135 deaths, third were the pre-election pacification missions in January 2005 with 107. And we’re at 101 now, according to

    I get angry when I do these Iraq posts. It’s such a stupid fucking waste.

  6. 7

    Another TJ spews:


    One suggestion: every time you post on the WA-05 race, include the photo of Reichert and Bush arm-in-arm. Every time.

  7. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Get bumper stickers while supplies last:

    “McGavick — He’s the problem, not the solution”

  8. 9

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Hey Goldy thanks for letting me talk on your show last night about how repealing the estate tax would allow huge capital gains to go untaxed — no income tax, no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax, no tax of any kind, ever. Sure wish I could’ve got that tax rate on my wages.

  9. 10

    rhp6033 spews:

    Funny how the Times is faced with a barrage of obviously misleading commercials from the Republicans (in favor of Reichart) and by McGavick, but this is what he thinks is important?

  10. 11

    Richard Pope spews:

    Jim King does present some good policy arguments. Yes, it can be just plain tacky to use video or audio clips from TVW. And perhaps playing “Judge/Justice X’s Dumbest Courtroom Comments” might lead courts to attempt restricting audio/video taping of court proceedings.

    I assume Pam Roach’s “roses” speech hasn’t made it into commercials, because Yvonne Ward and other opponents figure they have better things to do with their money and that using the speech might backfire with voters. Same thing with Rodney Tom’s speeches against Indian tribes — put those on cable TV ads in the 48th, and it might very well increase his support among voters.

    If Reichert’s opponents use his speech from the Mainstream Republicans conference in political commercials, it might make speakers at the event less willing to be frank and candid, and it might even possibly result in the Mainstream Republicans closing their conference to TVW coverage in the future.

    With all that said, I don’t see how the DCCC has violated the “fair use exemption” in the copyright laws. It may very well be that their ad backfires or isn’t very effective, especially if the general public finds political use of TVW footage to be offensive. But how is it illegal?

  11. 13

    Robert C Byrd-Democrat US Se spews:

    Additionally, what’s your opinion of the RNC’s “I met Harold Ford at the Playboy party” black man and white woman racial appeal?

    Commentby Daddy Love— 10/30/06@ 3:59 pm

    It is terrible and should hang em all. And they should hang the republicans who made this ad as well. I love being a democrat!!!!

  12. 14

    K spews:

    Cut the bullshit, americafirst. The record is clear that THIS ADMINISTRATION lied about the entry into THIS WAR. I do not blame America for the 9/11 attacks, and I’ve said before that the initial Bush response against the Taliban in Afganistan was correct, and even expertly done. Iraq, however, was his personal vendatta based on lies compounded by incompetance.

    Stay on point if you expect to be taken seriously.

  13. 15

    rhp6033 spews:


    Yea, try being an electrician or a plumber these days, without refering to the “male” and the “female” connectors….

  14. 16

    Robert spews:

    Republicanism is a Mental Disorder thanks once again Republicans for proving my point.

    Wow – writing drivel is EASY!!!

  15. 17

    sgmmac spews:


    It’s the economy……

    The Olympian reports:

    “Annual second quarter statewide retail sales showed the largest percentage gain in 16 years, a Department of Revenue report released today shows.

    Sales increased 10.5 percent statewide from April through June, the largest quarterly increase since a 10.9 percent gain in the second quarter of 1990. Sales statewide reached $27.6 billion in the second quarter.”

    Must be those Bush tax cuts!

  16. 18

    JCH [Pennsylvania] spews:

    GBS, Less than a week!! Soon you will require my permission to post!!! Deal with it!

  17. 19

    JCH [Pennsylvania] spews:

    Check out the list of the most dangerous cities in the USA. 100% Democrat!! Not a Republican within miles!!! All gang, crime, and drug infested Democrat Hillary Villiage Shit Holes!!! And all vote 115% Democrat!! [Atlas has Shrugged]

  18. 20

    My Left Foot spews:

    Jim King at 26:

    Gee for some little blog with no influence, you sure spend a lot of time here reading and posting. By the way, how much did you raise for your candidates of choice?

    (crickets chirping) (loudly)

    Funny how that works.

    Moronic musings, Jim, is all you really have. In six days you can cry foul when the house and senate “fall” to the Democrats.

  19. 21

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    Will all these right wing cowards and traitors go to some republican dick sucking convention when they looooooooose everything next Tue? And what of our local inbred trolls? What will they do? Tuck tail, run and hide is my prediction. After all – they are republicans so they are naturally cowards.

  20. 22

    My Left Foot spews:

    I see that after a short absence, Americafirst is back. This is the same lily-livered chickenshit, all talk and no willingness to back up his mouth with his ass….that agreed to meet me at Danny’s several weeks ago. Now he is back, spewing shit and proving what an ass he really is. Along with being a coward. I missed a day of vacation with my wife, Asshole, to get my ass across the sound and to Danny’s, where I waited for you to show up. I suppose you could have been there, sized up the situation and decided to remain silent. Not likely though. I am sure you were just too yellow to show.

    Funny how that works, americkafirst.

  21. 23

    Anonymous spews:

    HA HA HA JSA … great big difference between using a word (slave) and painting (one of your own) in blackface.

    That makes TWICE now you tolerant ones have done so JUST this election season: Lieberman on the Ariana Huff-n-Puff site and now, OMG a GAY man, Wolf Blitzer by KosKiddie Billmon.

  22. 24

    Richard Pope spews:

    How can they possibly say this violates the “fair use doctrine”? No matter how much you harp on your copyright, using a short clip from a copyrighted video for non-commercial purposes has to be acceptable.

    The Seattle Times says that TVW is “the state’s version of C-SPAN”. Let’s assume that C-SPAN tried to assert the exact same copyright policy position that TVW is presently asserting.

    If some U.S. senator or representative made some really stupid comment on C-SPAN (including during a debate in Congress), would news networks be prohibited from airing the video clip? And would it be verboten to use the resulting video clip in a political commercial?

  23. 25

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Did Frank endorse I-933? If he did, I’m going to buy property next door to his house, build a bumper chroming factory there, and hire an Indian tribe to run it.

  24. 26

    ArtFart spews:

    By the by…Roger, you must have been something of a motor head back in the day, to know what a plating plant smells like.

  25. 27

    Anonymous spews:

    Commentby jsa on commercial drive— 10/30/06@ 11:59 pm

    So to paraphrase your pathetic excuse-making: It’s ok to be a nasty bigot if you’re a minor 3rd tier little blogger who does it for the “joy of writing”. Yep so much joy to be found in being a pajamas racist.

    We’re so glad you bigots clarified that for us.

  26. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Ron Sims will have to raise Frank’s (and every other rich Republican’s) property taxes to pay me off. Nobody messes with MY property rights! I can do any fucking thing I want, anywhere I want to do it, and if you don’t like it — pay me A MILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY!!!

    I vote like a Republican so that someday I can live like a Republican.

  27. 31

    ChimpPatrol spews:

    sgmmac, not too worried in 2008, with the inept GOP here in Wash St they will probably run Pam ‘aka Janet s’ Roach. Or maybe someone more centrist like: americafirst, MWS, puddy or Rufus. lMFAO

  28. 32

    Daddy Love spews:

    48 americafirst

    Damn right. We’re going to fuck the Republican party in the ass, and you’re going to take it. Not so much fun when it’s done to you, huh?

  29. 33

    headless lucy spews:

    Would it be racist to show him in a yarmulke with the Pyramids behind him? Or dressed as a turn of the century Polish peasant? Or, one of the beautiful women that the Vikings captured in Europe before sailing off to Iceland.

    If you go back a ways, we all come from less than perfect circumstances. But these guys who are changing sides our way now will just as easily be mouthing rightie platitudes if it looks like it will be a feather in their cap and not a black eye.

    The legacy of Colonel Cathcart runs deep! (Google it JCH. Don’t say a public school teacher never tried to terach you something)

  30. 34

    Another TJ spews:

    Oh, and what does Billmon’s post have to do with the Seattle Times’ dishonesty/stupidity?

  31. 36

    RUFUS Fitzgerald Kennedy spews:

    Boots on the ground know a whole lot more than shoes on marble,” she says.

    Just like Rumsfield and his annoying patronizing attitude, to diss families of service members who don’t kiss his ass.

    Commentby rhp6033— 10/30/06@ 4:39 pm

    Not another liberal pussy whinning about military families being mistreated. If you libs cared about the military you would not parade the names of the dead soldiers in your lefty peace vigils. Go screw yourself.

  32. 37

    sgmmac spews:

    I just hope that none of you will complain when the clips of Gregoire from TVW appear in 08……….

  33. 39

    RUFUS Fitzgerald Kennedy spews:

    Hmmmm Newsweek….. Are they believable. Lets see here…. (toilet flushing)…. that Koran just wont go down will it. heehehe

  34. 40

    For the Clueless spews:

    Blethen is a traitor. He shills for the Republicans by omission to eliminate the estate tax.

    Never, ever will I buy that paper as long as he owns it.

  35. 42

    busdrivermike spews:

    Fuck Frank Blethen! Lets put a initiative on the ballot next year tripling the estate tax!

  36. 43

    jsa on commercial drive spews:

    Anonymous @ 12:

    Yes, and the County of Los Angeles demands that “slave” not be used by hard drive manufacturers either.

    The fact that a blogger used poor choice of wording? By these standards, every Fortune 500 company that has ever discharged an employee on sexual harassment charges should be subject to an extended boycott for promoting sexism. (after all, they did hire that employee in the first place).

    Speaking for the Entire Leftist Movement (hey, it works both ways, right?) I’d like to say that this blogger whose site I have never read should not call Wolf Blitzer a house slave. In addition, he should stand in the corner for at least 20 minutes, after having his mouth washed out with soap. If anyone in our house used language like that, I’d do the same thing.

    Break time is over. Time to go back to installing hard drives…

    (now, let’s see. The pinout for the drive which is dominant is… Oh drat! I think that’s a BDSM term. The drive which controls… No that’s not right. I might be a while. I’ll check in next week).

  37. 44

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Per rhp’s suggestion …

    RR: How about a pig farm? That wouldn’t cause permanant harm to the environment, but would make it mighty unpleasant “aroma” for Blethan to come home to. Commentby rhp6033— 10/30/06@ 11:14 am

    … I’m going to put a pig farm next to Frank’s house, and hire the Enumclaw horse-farm owners to run it.

  38. 45

    proud leftist spews:

    Mac @ 21
    Actually, as with many issues, economic indicators are all over the place right now. For instance, the housing market is way down nationally right now, and that sector drives others. Third quarter growth was anemic, and less than anticipated, primarily due to the housing market’s decline. Economic indicators are just as consistent right now with a significant slowdown next year, or even a recession, as they are with healthy growth. If Bush’s apologists want to give him credit for a healthy economy, fairness suggests they’d better be prepared to blame him if things go south next year.

  39. 46

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    ” … their editorialists are getting their election law advice from the same quack advising them on fair use … ”

    I’ll bet Stefan’s public disclosure lawyer is the same guy! That’s probably why Stefan hasn’t shared the loot from his lawsuit against King County with the generous donors to his “legal action fund” who helped pay for the lawsuit — there isn’t any loot to share! I’ll bet Stefan LOST in court!!! That’s probably why he’s been so quiet about it. I’ve asked him 259 times why he hasn’t returned any money to his donors, and he refuses to respond, even though we all know he reads THIS BLOG.

  40. 49

    proud leftist spews:

    Jim King
    This post hardly evidences an obsession on Goldy’s part concerning Frank Blethen and the Seattle Times. Rather, as the newspaper with the largest circulation in the state, the Times should be exposed to serious and persistent analysis when it pushes political causes and candidates. Tell me who is going to undertake such analysis if not someone in the blogosphere? The mainstream media does not typically go after one of its own. The Times in this particular election cycle has shown itself not just as partisan, but as lacking in journalistic credibility. The paper’s shilling on behalf of halfwit characters like Reichert, McGavick, and McMorris is embarrassing. Goldy performs a public service in publishing the unflattering truth about the Times. Your motives in telling him to quiet down are transparent.

  41. 50

    americafirst spews:

    americafirst- good thing the Democrats didn’t do anything like lie to get into a war so that our military can get killed.
    The Big Lies go to the Republicans.
    Commentby K—— 10/30/06@ 6:43 pm
    Good point. The last thing a lib would do would be to lie in order to fight back against Islamofascism. Dem libs concentrate on lying in order to come up with excuses to surrender.

    Maybe you can think of a single instance since WWII where libs haven’t blamed America instead of the enemy for all conflicts? That would take some pretty creative lying from you.
    Good luck.

  42. 52

    rhp6033 spews:

    Re: # 9: Oh, Gee, did I violate MSNBC’s copyright by posting that quote with a link to their site? Wanna bet that they are more than happy to have somebody linking to their site, and would have no objection to such a short excert, regardless of whether if falls under the “fair use” doctrine or not?

  43. 53

    RUFUS Fitzgerald Kennedy spews:


    LMAO– Why is it so easy to make fun of donks. When a dem starts spouting off and pointing fingers you know the punchline is right around the corner. heehehe

  44. 54

    americafirst spews:

    Dems publish this……..

    “So when the leadership comes to me and says , Dave you have to vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority, I do it.”

    Then cut out the rest of the statement………

    “There are sometimes when I say no I won’t. There are sometimes when things come to the floor like Schiavo. I was one of five republicans that voted with the Democrats on Schiavo because that was the right thing to do.”
    “by Goldy, 10/30/2006, 2:01 PM
    Typical tactic for sleazeball Dems to change the meaning by cutting out the last part then trying to pass it off as genuine.

    Lying, phoney, America-hating Dem shitheads showing their true colors. Keep at it and watch it backfire, dumbshits.

  45. 55

    rhp6033 spews:

    A note from Newsweek on the negative ads hitting the airwaves this week:

    …Most worrisome for the GOP? As a wave of negative political ads from both parties takes to the airwaves in the final days before the election, voters so far judge the Republican ads more harshly. Overall, about two-thirds of registered voters say neither parties’ ads have made much difference in how they’re going to vote. Just 9 percent of registered voters who have seen Republican advertisements say the spots make them more likely to vote for Republican candidates; 24 percent say the ads make them less likely. The Democrats seem to turn off fewer voters with their commercials and win more over, but it’s still a wash. Fourteen percent of registered voters say they’re more likely to vote for a Democrat because of the ads they’ve seen; 16 percent say they’re less likely.

    And the GOP seems to be risking a backlash with some of its most risqué advertisements. The most widely viewed of the commercials in the NEWSWEEK poll—the Michael J. Fox ad in support of stem-cell research, which aired in Missouri and Maryland (and is the only ad in the poll seen by a majority of Americans)—was considered acceptable by 62 percent of registered voters who saw it. But of the 24 percent of registered voters who said they’d seen the ad “critical of a Tennessee Senate candidate that shows a young woman who says she met him at a party,” only 20 percent found it acceptable; an overwhelming 77 percent of those who had seen it said the ad was “too extreme.”

  46. 57

    proud to be an Ass spews:

    I just hope that none of you will complain when the clips of Gregoire from TVW appear in 08……….

    Rest easy, sarge. We’re not whining little crybabies like the republicans. Have you ever watched a theiving republican get sentenced to hard time? They cry like little kids. Pathetic.

  47. 58

    Daddy Love spews:

    22 and 71 Anonymous

    Again: What is “racist” about someone portraying Wolf Blitzer (who, by the way, is a CNN reporter and not “one of our own”) in blackface to illustrate their metaphor about him being a “House slave” for the Bush Administration who is now turning against his master? Wolf spent the better part of hte last five yars lobbing softballs to Administration flacks and parroting RNC talking points to his few liberal guests.

    I think if you can assert it, you should damn well support it. Because I just don’t buy your assertion. Seems like you’re just saying it.

  48. 61

    K spews:

    americafirst- good thing the Democrats didn’t do anything like lie to get into a war so that our military can get killed.

    The Big Lies go to the Republicans.

  49. 63


    Jim King Jr. @26,

    What you are arguing for is that the voters be denied hearing the truth. That the Times can use it’s enormous muscle to perpetrate the lie that Reichert is a “conscious-driven independent” but the DCCC shouldn’t be allowed to use Reichert’s own words to refute it.

    Yes… the Times is perpetrating a lie. Just like they are when they write:

    But there is one TV ad benefiting Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner that is beyond the pale, not because of what it says but because it violates a copyright of TVW, Washington’s public-affairs network.

    The DCCC ad most certainly does not violate anybody’s copyright. Your argument that respecting some TVW gentleman’s agreement is in the public interest is entirely separate from the Times’ bogus claim that the Dems are violating the copyright laws. The Times is intentionally misleading their readers. Pure and simple.

    So again… what you are suggesting is that the Times be allowed to misrepresent Reichert’s record, yet the Dems not be allowed to respond with Reichert’s own words.

    How exactly is this in the public interest?

  50. 64

    Mike Webb SUCKS spews:

    Now here’s something racist from the AP:

    Two-thirds of all blacks, and about the same amount of black likely voters, oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

  51. 67

    Daddy Love spews:

    12 Anonymous

    To use dialect and a Photshopped poster to indicate that Wolf Blitzer was a “house slave” for the Bush administration until his VERY recent testicular development may be in bad taste, but how is it “racist?”

    It seems to be a verse of the Republican catechism that any mention of a racial matter by a Democrat (and I personally wouldn’t call Billmon a Democrat–he roasts them too) must be followed by a Republican accusing them of intolerance or racism.

    Race exists as a social construct in this country. The histories of race bias and slavery and the institutions thereof exist in this country. Mentioning that fact, or using a fact from that history as an illustrative metaphor, is not intolerant or racist in my view. But I would love to hear your side. You don’t seem to be too willing to explain your thinking.

    Additionally, what’s your opinion of the RNC’s “I met Harold Ford at the Playboy party” black man and white woman racial appeal?

  52. 69

    jsa on commercial drive spews:

    Anonymous @ 22:

    That makes TWICE now you tolerant ones have done so JUST this election season:

    You know, I try very hard to see the good in people. With this in mind, I try believe you are simply rabidly partisan, and doing your best to defend the indefensible in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary out of some misplaced sense of loyalty to the team. I mean, I can get this. I have coworkers who are Chicago Cubs fans, it’s cool.

    The rest of the time, I think you are literally off-the-rails insane.

    What do the opinions of bloggers have to do with anything? They are not policy makers, they are not legislators, party officials, or anything else. They are not funded by think tanks, they have no sponsors. With a few exceptions, most of them write for the sheer joy of writing. Even Kos, who makes an OK living off of his blog probably clears in a year what a first-tier media personality like Rush or Anne C makes in a few days.

    The point is, they are private citizens shooting their mouths off. You’re only slightly better off criticizing the acid-tongued cab driver who ran you around NYC last time you were there. Odds are statistically good he was a Democrat.

    The fact you have to dig so far down into the liberal bench to dig up dirt indicates someone must be doing something right.

    But seriously, equating the missteps of elected leaders in the current Republican party with a few loudmouths on the left is indicative of raw, unbounded insanity.

    … or maybe just blind partisanship. I’ll decide tomorrow. Good night!

  53. 70

    Jim King spews:

    Goldy- Your obsession with who has the bigger tool, you or Frank Blethen, has passed obsessive and gone onto just plain sick. Other than your little cast of characters in your echo chamber, nobody in the universe gives a damn that Frank keeps taking you in the ass. He’s got more money, more ink, a much broader audience, and is severely more influential.

    Get used to it. You are not the P-I trying to compete with the Times- you are just a little blogger. It took you months of begging to raise a piddly $30,000 for a couple of candidates.

    As for the violation of the TVW copyright- being an outsider, and most of your readership knowing very little of the real world, it is obvious that there isn’t a clue here at HA as to why this is a big thing, and isn’t the same as reprinting words from the Times or other such little examples of plagiarism because you can’t come up with the words yourselves.

    And it isn’t about quoting accurately or in context.

    The creation of TVW was a very close call- and thanks to the existence of TVW we have more open coverage of state government and public affairs than almost any other state. We have not just live coverage of our Legislature, but easily accessed archives of its floor and committee sessions, of our state supreme court, of many boards and commissions, and of much more.

    That doesn’t have to be the case. The fundamental agreement that paved the way for TVW to come into being was that it would not be used for partisan political purposes, nor to embarrass those who appear on it.

    Why don’t we just put a clip together of legislators picking their noses on camera and all of the other fun stuff that goes on? Why hasn’t the “roses” speech appeared in TV ads? Why don’t both parties slice an dice thei opponents with footage from TVW?

    How about Rodney Tom’s speeches against the tribes? That would make a cool piece, especiall since he was dense enough to turn arond and ask them to support him (they are backing Esser).

    None of the entities being broadcast on TVW have to be there. How long do you think the State Supreme Court would continue to allow its hearings to be broadcast if someone put together a “Susan Owens dumbest questions” piece? Why do you think few states have even a little bit of what we have here with TVW?

    We have a wonderful, non-political assett that you fools, L’il Darcy, and the Democrats in DC think we should just throw away.

    If you think TVW was just responding to Reichert and the GOP on this, you have no clue about TVW President Cindy Zehnder, but then you appear to have no clue about TVW or its value. As usual, the Times nderstands it mch better than you ever will.

  54. 71

    americafirst spews:

    Cut the bullshit, americafirst. The record is clear that THIS ADMINISTRATION lied about the entry into THIS WAR. I do not blame America for the 9/11 attacks, and I’ve said before that the initial Bush response against the Taliban in Afganistan was correct, and even expertly done. Iraq, however, was his personal vendatta based on lies compounded by incompetance.
    Stay on point if you expect to be taken seriously.
    Commentby K— 10/30/06@ 7:48 pm
    Just like a lib to go off point and then whine about staying on point. Don’t you ever get tired of the bush lied mantra, K? How about something profound like bush is a drunk?

    At least you don’t blame America for 9-11. Bet most of the lib kooks here do.

  55. 72

    rhp6033 spews:

    Speaking of video of public figures:

    Newsweek has a link on their site to a video of Rusmfield taking questions from family members of servicemen/women. But the families aren’t as compliant and obediant at they used to be, especially after their husbands/wives have had their tours extended. I can’t play the clip on this computer, but you can find it in the whole article. Here is an excerpt where the exchange is described:

    “One reason for the breakdown of trust is that both the soldiers and families of the 172nd know the Pentagon has overestimated the readiness of Iraqi forces in the past. During a meeting between Rumsfeld and family members at Ft. Wainwright in Fairbanks last August, one wife complained that her husband, the driver of a heavily armored Stryker, told her he had to get out of his vehicle regularly to sweep houses for weapons. This is one of the most dangerous urban warfare jobs, and Iraqi troops are supposed to perform it while Americans back them up. In a videotape of the meeting obtained by NEWSWEEK, Rumsfeld told the woman she was “mistaken,” that Iraqi forces perform more than 90 percent of the sweeps while the Americans stand guard in their vehicles. He was promptly shouted down by several angry wives who cried “No, no, no.” Rich Moniak says, “That really made people angry. We knew that was nonsense.” One 4-23 wife, Jennifer Davis, a leader of the dissident family members, says she’s heard stories about poor performance by the Iraqi security forces for months now. “Boots on the ground know a whole lot more than shoes on marble,” she says.

    Just like Rumsfield and his annoying patronizing attitude, to diss families of service members who don’t kiss his ass.

  56. 73

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    Jimmy Queen wouldn’t mind a bit if the tables were turned. He’d argue that it’s fair to use something/anything against a Dem.

    The rethugs absolutely go batshit crazy when you use their own words against them. It makes it hard for them to blame the “liberal” media.

    I’ve cancelled my sub to the Times. It appears to be completely republican controlled from Postman’s alleged blog to the alleged news reported byf the Times’ reporters.

  57. 74


    Richard @35,

    While Jim is certainly partisan, I wasn’t implying that this was particularly a partisan-based argument. I’m simply suggesting that it seems odd that public discourse would be harmed by the truth.

    This is Reichert in his own words. The public has the right to hear them.