HorsesAss.Org

According to Jonathan Stein at Mother Jones, Cook Political Report has just changed their ratings on 10 House races, all of them with Republican incumbents, and all of them moving in the Democratic direction. And one of these, of course, is WA-08, where Darcy Burner looks increasingly well situated to unseat Dave Reichert.

CA-04 — OPEN (Doolittle) — Solid Republican to Likely Republican
CO-04 — Marilyn Musgrave — Lean Republican to Toss Up
CT-04 — Chris Shays — Lean Republican to Toss Up
IL-10 — Mark Kirk — Lean Republican to Toss Up
NM-02 — OPEN (Pearce) — Likely Republican to Lean Republican
NY-29 — Randy Kuhl — Lean Republican to Toss Up
NC-08 — Robin Hayes — Lean Republican to Toss Up
OH-01 — Steve Chabot — Lean Republican to Toss Up
VA-02 — Thelma Drake — Likely Republican to Lean Republican
WA-08 — Dave Reichert — Lean Republican to Toss Up

Both Cook and CQ have now upgraded WA-08 from “leans Republican” to “toss up” and “no clear favorite” respectively. I’m guessing Rothenberg will follow shortly.

UPDATE:
Here’s the summary analysis from Cook:

WA-08 Dave Reichert
Lean Republican to Toss Up
This high-tech, upper-income district in the Seattle suburbs is prototypical Obama terrain. Although it is likely Reichert’s reputation as a law-and-order moderate will allow him to outperform McCain by a handful of points, it simply may not be enough. Even if she is slightly to the district’s left, Democrat Darcy Burner is running a more focused campaign than she ran in 2006 and still lacks a record to attack. Reichert, who will not be able to spend Burner and the DCCC dollar-for-dollar this time, will look more like an underdog this time around – which is not a terrible image to possess in this climate. This race appears headed to another photo finish.

So… Joni Balter kinda-sorta admits that Washington is not a battleground state… and then expends 740 words pretending it is. And we learned what from this column?

You know, the main downside to reading the Seattle Times online for free, is that I can’t demand a refund or threaten to cancel my subscription.

Matthew Yglesias makes an astute observation:

In some ways, I think McCain himself doesn’t quite realize how Bush-esque he is. He clearly doesn’t like Bush, and has been disliking him for a long time. But that kind of personalized, overblown disdain for Bush-the-man can wind up leading you to overestimate Bush-the-grand-strategist. To McCain, Bush’s policies have failed because of Bush. Replace Bush with McCain and shift tactics around the margins, and the same basic ideas should work out fine. It’s a nice theory, but I don’t think it’s a true theory.

McCain has a tendency to say things on the campaign trail that simply aren’t true, such as his claim Tuesday night that he “strongly disagreed with the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq…” a claim clearly contradicted by many prior public statements.

It could be, as Yglesias suggests, that McCain has conflated his personal dislike for Bush with his personal evaluation of the administration’s strategies and tactics—McCain may actually believe he opposed Bush, despite his near-lockstep support for the President’s policies. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t remember critical facts about key policies and issues. Or maybe he’s just lying.

Whatever. McCain himself may believe he is a “maverick,” but over the past few years both his Senate voting record and his record of public statements say otherwise. These are contradictions of which voters will be made well aware over the coming months.

George Friedman at Stratfor, a publication by current and retired intelligence officials, lays out the stark reality of what’s happening in Mexico right now, warning of that country’s potential to become a failed state. The root of the crisis is the growing influence of the cartels who operate an approximately $40 billion a year industry in illegal drugs, nearly all of which is consumed in the United States. Friedman sees a possibility that the cartels, who already dominate most of northern Mexico, could soon become powerful enough to usurp the power of the elected government in Mexico City as well.

The recent violence from Mexico has been staggering. Over a thousand people, including hundreds of police, have already been killed this year in fighting between federal officials and the cartels. The cartels operate with such impunity in parts of the country that they’re able to publicly advertise for recruits. Some Mexican police officers in the border region are even attempting to flee to the United States.

Friedman makes the appropriate comparison to 1920s alcohol prohibition, reminding us that during that time, the city of Chicago had a failed government. And had Al Capone and his men become powerful enough to defeat the federal agents, America could have become a failed state. Thankfully, America only allowed its doomed experiment in alcohol prohibition to last for just over a decade. Our current prohibition, however, has been going on for several decades now and has turned all of Mexico into an even more extreme version of 1920s Chicago with modern weapons.

Occasionally, we see some intelligent discussion of this growing problem in the traditional media (like this column from Neal Peirce in the Seattle Times last week). But in the political realm, there are no solutions on the horizon. The only thing being proposed is the Merida Initiative, a laughable effort to provide Mexico with $1.4 billion that the Mexican government might even turn down because of the strings attached.

I’m sure that much will be made over the disagreements between the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress over the Merida Initiative, but neither party has the political courage to do what Friedman explains is the only realistic solution:

One way to deal with the problem would be ending the artificial price of drugs by legalizing them. This would rapidly lower the price of drugs and vastly reduce the money to be made in smuggling them. Nothing hurt the American cartels more than the repeal of Prohibition, and nothing helped them more than Prohibition itself. Nevertheless, from an objective point of view, drug legalization isn’t going to happen. There is no visible political coalition of substantial size advocating this solution. Therefore, U.S. drug policy will continue to raise the price of drugs artificially, effective interdiction will be impossible, and the Mexican cartels will prosper and make war on each other and on the Mexican state.

I’ve been asked recently why I focus so much on the topic of drug policy when most of the country still considers it a political minefield. It’s because even though it’s a political minefield, that doesn’t mean it’s any less urgent to fix. Our current approach to dealing with the drug trade in Mexico is piñata policy, put on a blindfold and swing a big stick hoping that you hit something and a bunch of candy falls out. Many people think that we can do this forever, just pretending that it’s the best way while allowing us to keep from breaking free from the drug war mindset. They’re wrong. And the damage in Mexico (not to mention Afghanistan, Colombia, and in our inner cities) is the proof that they’re wrong. The millions of refugees from this war who have already fled to the United States from Mexico should be a good indication of that.

This country needs to develop a viable constituency that demands from the next American administration that we start dismantling the international drug war and to deal with the problem of drug addiction in a way that doesn’t bring a country of 100 million people to the verge of becoming a failed state. Yeah, I talk about the drug war a lot. I do it because we can’t afford not to any more.

[h/t to Transform for the link]

As I’ve posted previously, there’s more to Dave Reichert’s abusive franking practices than simply a flagrant waste of taxpayer money, for it is not just the medium that is at question here, but the message itself.

Yesterday I contrasted two franked mail pieces, one in which Reichert promises “bold” earmark reform, and the other in which he brags about the amount of earmarked bacon he brought home to his district. You can’t get much more hypocritical than that.

Or can you?

In a widely distributed franked mail piece from 2007 headlined “Issue Alert: Medicare Cuts,” Reichert touts his opposition to “devastating cuts” in senior benefits:

In this taxpayer funded mailer, Reichert promises to “uphold my pledge to protect Medicare,” from, you know, all those social service slashing Democrats in Congress.

And what kind of pledge exactly is Reichert talking about? Well, judging from this clip from May of 2006, back when he thought he and his fellow Republicans would still control Congress in the coming session, it wasn’t much of one:

Yup, when Reichert talks about taking a “closer look at government waste,” the first place he looks is Medicare and Medicaid, because “you get the biggest bang for the buck when you cut those programs.”

Wow. That’s some pledge.

Reichert has sent out over one million pieces of franked mail since winning reelection in November, 2006—none of them fact checked by media truth squads, none of them rebutted by the opposition, and all of them paid for with taxpayer money. He uses his franking privileges to create a demonstrably false impression about his votes in Congress and his stance on the issues.

And as far as I can tell, our local editorialists and columnists just don’t seem to care.

UPDATE:
The video clip above is ©2006 by TVW. You can view full coverage of Reichert’s speech here.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
YouTube has pulled the clip at TVW’s request, so exercising my rights under the fair use exemption, I have reposted the clip using a different service.

I especially love Britt Hume’s cogent commentary.

Last week’s performance at the Washington State Republican Convention wasn’t the first time Rep. Dave Reichert laughed at the thought of Hillary Clinton plummeting to her death from an airplane; as the TNT’s Niki Sullivan reported back in March, he delivered the same “joke” before the Pierce County Republicans at their annual Lincoln Day Breakfast in Tacoma. But that wasn’t the congressman’s only questionable quip of the day:

At one point in the speech, he reminded people that Barack Obama may seem friendly and electable, but he’s a liberal, “and he will steal money out of your wallets and purses.”

The crowd was silent.

So… a famously former sheriff warns the crowd that a black man is going to steal their wallets? Yeah, I can imagine the stunned silence. (Though personally, I always cross the street whenever I see Barack Obama coming toward me on a sidewalk. You can never be too careful.)

(Sigh.) And this is best Washington’s 8th Congressional District has to offer?

UPDATE [Lee]: Matt Stoller posts about Reichert’s sexism.

A couple years ago Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels rankled a few folks by suggesting that the Frank Colacurcio Sr. might be involved in organized crime:

“The clubs don’t make their money off of Pepsi (and …) they’re not allowed to serve alcohol,” Nickels said during his monthly appearance on a call-in television show on Seattle’s government affairs cable channel, called Seattle Channel. “I believe that there is organized crime involved in at least that club and perhaps others.”

Yeah, sure… the Colacurcio’s had a long history of gambling, vice, and suspected mob involvement, but to suggest that a family is connected to organized crime, simply because they have a very Italian sounding name (and own a string of shady strip clubs… and were suspected in a series of execution style killings)… well, that’s just offensive.

Where’s the proof, critic’s asked? Apologies were demanded. Nickels refused.

Well, since truth-defenders like Erica are such sticklers for apologies, I’m guessing they’ll be sending a few “I’m sorries” Nickels’ way, now that his charges appear to be backed up by a five-year federal investigation.

Gov. Christine Gregoire comments on Obama’s apparent victory:

We have just witnessed an historic primary season where ideas and ideals rose to the forefront of the debate in our country. The candidates and voters should all be commended. Now it’s time we all stand together and unite behind our Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

Many years ago, I was inspired by a man who offered a similar message of hope and belief as Barack Obama does today. Then, it was John F. Kennedy, a man whose words and actions led to my career in public service. Today, I feel similarly toward Sen. Obama. He offers this country a vision of positive change and leadership we can stand behind.

Our country is about its people, and for the last eight years we’ve been divided and moving in the wrong direction at home and abroad. It’s time to stand proud and take back this country. Sen. Barack Obama is the right person to lead us.

We need a partner in the other Washington that believes it is our responsibility to provide healthcare to children, fund a world-class education system and fight global climate change. While we’ve gotten results for families in our state over the last four years, imagine even greater possibilities with the barriers down and a partner in place in our nation’s capitol.

It’s time to renew our country’s economy. It’s time our nation recommits to every working man and woman. It’s time for good quality, affordable, accessible health care. It’s time that we tell every child to dream as big as they possibly can, and that dreams really can come true. It’s time to eliminate hopelessness and poverty and give the great people of this nation a vision worth believing in.

Indeed…to me, this vision is like a breath of fresh air—a beam of sunlight breaking through—after 7.5 years under a cloud of incompetence, immorality, deception, and scandal in the White House.

I’m listening to Hillary Clinton speak and I can’t quite figure out where she’s going. She started off very conciliatory, but she didn’t concede. And then she went into her usual schtick about winning the popular vote, and winning the swing states. So who knows.

Meanwhile everybody else seems to know Obama is the nominee but her (and her fans,) which makes Clinton’s speech all the more uncomfortable to watch. I feel like I’m watch a Pirandello play.

UPDATE [7:15PM]:
Well whaddaya know… Obama just claimed victory too!

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Tonight many of us will be there early to witness the end of the Democratic primary and catch some dinner.

Tonight’s theme song will be a tribute to the late, great Ellas Bates, a.k.a. Bo Diddley: Hey Bo Diddley.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Unsaid in my critique of the Washington State Republican Party platform and its call to repeal the birthright citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment, is that their xenophobic, anti-immigration rhetoric is actually right in line with that of their national party leadership. Which I suppose explains why the RNC has named a charmer like Chris Gulugian-Taylor to head Washington State’s “Victory 2008” committee, the organization responsible for spending national party money on the statewide GOTV effort.

Guligian-Taylor was Rudy Giuliani’s regional political director for Western states (um… Giuliani had a Western states campaign?) and was the executive director of the Nevada Republican Party in 2006… before resigning his position in the midst of a mini-scandal, a month before election day.

It seems Chris Gulugian-Taylor sent out the announcement of a Minuteman rally (subject line: “Help stop the illegal invasion”) to the GOP’s e-mail list, complete with nasty little digs like this:

“If you are tired of seeing illegals catered to, then join us to send these Un-American corporations a message.

“We’ll not allow these illegals destroy our country. We’ll not permit corporations like Chicago Title, Wells Fargo Bank, and Miller Brewing promote [sic] and financially support the take over [sic] of America by the Illegal Invaders.

“Your voice is needed to let these Un-American companies know we will not tolerate them supporting illegals over law abiding citizens.”

Ouch, baby. That’s got to hurt, especially if your party is trying to appeal to Latino voters and not alienate them.

[…] Look, we don’t want to be dicks about this, but are you really surprised? Hell, we’re talking about the party that wanted to make felons out of illegal immigrants, and to declare (in contravention of the U.S. Constitution) that children born to illegal immigrants should not be U.S. citizens…

Yup, it sounds like the WSRP’s newest political guest worker is going to fit right in with the locals.

Two weeks ago, Goldy praised reporter/blogger Niki Sullivan for “holding people in power accountable.” I think that’s central to why I do this and why motivated bloggers are slowly changing the political landscape in this country. But I also strongly believe that this applies to the politicians we support, and that’s why I’ve been very critical of Governor Gregoire recently for the way she’s handled the process for establishing “60-day-supply” medical marijuana limits for the state’s qualified patients.

Carol Ostrom from the Seattle Times writes about the meeting that took place yesterday involving a smaller group of stakeholders (it was only open to the public at the last minute due to public pressure). In Gregoire’s radio appearance on KUOW last week, she said (falsely) that doctors were not involved in the initial workshops held around the state and that they needed to be more involved. However, according to Steve Sarich from the patient assistance group CannaCare, one of the physicians who submitted testimony to the workshops wasn’t contacted about the meeting until Friday evening. On the other hand, Don Pierce, the executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, is still heavily involved in the process despite not having anything valuable to contribute to what should be a medical discussion. If the Governor truly believes that the decision over the limits should be rooted in medical necessity, she’s not doing a very good job convincing anyone of her sincerity.

I’ve posted up today in response to Ostrom’s latest report and I’m hoping to get some clarification on my conclusion:

I’ve covered Don Pierce and his illogal and uninformed nonsense before, but he’s hitting upon an even more absurd argument by saying that “anybody involved in cultivation and sale could hide behind” a 10ft by 10ft growing area. Is he kidding? We’re talking about the state’s #1 cash crop. Someone with a small patch of plants in their basement isn’t even a drop in the bucket to the overall supply of illegal marijuana in this state. According to the article linked above, law enforcement seized just under 300,000 plants in this state last year, and even that didn’t put a dent in the supply anywhere in Washington.

The question here, and I brought this up in the last post, is why the Governor continues to believe that someone like Don Pierce should be involved in this process? He has no expertise in medicine, he clearly has no clue what he’s talking about, he’s intentionally being misleading, and he has a strong incentive to keep getting paid with taxpayer money to do something that the citizens of this state have repeatedly indicated (through the ballot box and from polling) that they don’t think he should be doing (arresting medical marijuana patients). The Governor is often accused of being a pawn for the state’s unions over the good of the overall public. I don’t always agree with that assessment, but in this case, there’s really no other conclusion to draw.

In defending Dave Reichert’s abusive franking practices, the typical Republican defense is to roll their eyes, shrug their shoulders and say “everybody does it.” But not everybody does, and of those who do, few abuse the privilege to the extent of Reichert. And almost nobody uses taxpayer money to lie to taxpayers the way Reichert does in his franked mail cum campaign brochures.

Take for example Reichert’s recent taxpayer-funded campaign mailer constituent communication. In this one, Reichert touts his “bold” earmark reform… which basically consists of “not seeking congressional earmarks this year.”

“It is time to change the way things are done in Congress,” Reichert spends your money telling you, which is why he supports “a moratorium on earmarks, which have led to wasteful spending of your money.”

And yet, just two years ago, Reichert dropped a big chunk of taxpayer change on a piece of franked mail with the headline “Congressman Dave Reichert: Working for You,” and featuring a map bragging about all the pork he claimed to have have brought home to his district.

So one piece of franked mail touts his opposition to wasteful earmarks, while another brags about his profligate use of the tool. That’s the kind of rank hypocrisy Reichert shouldn’t be able to get away with, unless… you know… our local media lets him.

According to the AP, it’s over:

Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

[…] The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

Good.  Now we can get on to the business of kicking John McCain’s ass.