HorsesAss.Org

For those who missed this week’s “The David Goldstein Show” (Newsradio 710-KIRO, Sunday nights from 7PM to 10PM,) the commercial-free podcasts are now available for your offline listening pleasure.

Hour 1: Are we on the brink of an historic military defeat in Iraq? Philip Gold is a former Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the conservative Seattle-based think tank the Discovery Institute. He predicted a Jihadist terrorist attack on US soil months before 9/11, and was one of the first prominent conservatives to warn that an Iraq invasion would lead to disaster. Now he fears that our current foreign policy could lead to our biggest ground defeat since the loss of the Philippines in 1942. Tune in and find out why this “former lifelong Republican” will be voting a straight Democratic ticket.

Hour 2: Q&A with Darcy and Peter. Two of the hottest House races in the nation are right here in Washington state, and both Democratic challengers, Darcy Burner and Peter Goldmark, joined me to talk about the election and their legislative agenda.

Hour 3: Do you believe what you read in the papers? Well, maybe the comics. Former Seattle Weekly columnist Geov Parrish came into the studio to give his kiss-and-tell account of the alt-weekly’s recent political purge, and to join me in ragging on the local media in general. Believe it or not, we had some harsh things to say about the Seattle Times editorial board. Go figure.

We will soon make full archives available online at PodcastingLiberally.com, where you can always find my weekly podcast for the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.

And don’t for a moment think that Times publisher Frank Blethen wouldn’t do it.

(Apologies to National Lampoon for bastardizing their classic cover.)

President Bush uses “the Google.” Nice to know he’s keeping up with technology.

Seattle Schools Superintendent Raj Manhas will resign, effective the end of the school year.

“After careful consideration, I have decided that this year will be my final year as superintendent of Seattle Public Schools,” he said. “This is a personal decision I have made in the interests of my family.”

Manhas’s resignation is in the interests of all of our families, I’d say. As my regular readers know I was quite involved this summer in a campaign to save my daughter’s school from closure, and while we were ultimately successful the entire experience left a very bitter taste in my mouth. The more I learned about the closure process the more I grew disenchanted with both the school board and the district administration. While I do not doubt Manhas’s intentions, I completely lost confidence in his ability to lead the district.

Perhaps the best decision of his three-year administration was the one he made today — to announce his resignation far enough in advance so as to give the board time to conduct a proper search for his replacement. After the failed leadership of both Manhas and his immediate predecessor Joseph Olshefske, I think it is time for the board to stop hiring bean counters, and search for a true education professional.

I generally find Seattle Times editorials to be stultifying, muddled and, well, boring — but in endorsing Mike McGavick, the editorial board has managed to make one thing absolutely perfectly clear: it is time to remove the word “Seattle” from the paper’s masthead.

Seattle is a liberal city, a big “D” Democratic city that has not sent a single Republican to the state legislature in years. It’s congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott, is amongst the most liberal members of the House, and he hails from one of the safest seats in the nation. Likewise, in statewide elections Seattle voters can be relied upon to vote for Democrats and against right-wing initiatives in overwhelming numbers.

But Seattle is not just a dark blue island in the midst of a sea of red, for over the past decade the nearby suburbs have grown solidly Democratic too. Republican elected officials are becoming a dying breed in former GOP strongholds like Mercer Island, Bellevue and other communities across the Eastside and to both the North and the South of the city. Map election trends out over the past 20 years and what you see is a blue tide inexorably spreading out from the city center as population densities increase throughout the metropolitan region, and the Republican Party abandons the values and concerns of both urban and suburban voters.

This is the region the Times serves. These are the readers who fork over their fifty cents a day, and who patronize the Times’ advertisers. This is the community whose interests the Times is supposed to represent.

Yet even in a year when the Times editorial board has acknowledged that the Bush White House and its rubber stamp Republican majority in Congress are leading our nation towards disaster, Republican candidates have somehow managed to make a clean sweep of the Times endorsements in every contested congressional race. Reichert, McMorris and McGavick — all Republicans who would vote for a leadership that would guarantee the Bush administration a free hand to stay the course in Iraq — all of them endorsed by the editorial board of a newspaper that claims to serve one of the most solidly Democratic markets in the nation.

In obsessively leading the fight to repeal the estate tax, in articulately opposing media consolidation, and in relentlessly pursuing his efforts to drive the competing Seattle P-I into oblivion by severing the two papers’ Joint Operating Agreement, Times publisher and owner Frank Blethen has passionately argued that the community is better served by a local, family-owned newspaper than one operated by a faceless, corporate, absentee owner.

To which I now ask Frank: exactly which community are you serving?

It certainly isn’t Seattle.

Oh, Frank can speak loftily about the unique role five generations of Blethens have played in safeguarding our democracy and fostering civic discourse, but with the McGavick endorsement it has become abundantly clear that the only community Frank Blethen is truly dedicated to serving is the one that consists of him and his heirs. If not for the mean-spirited tone and over-the-top one-sidedness of the Reichert endorsement one could have reasonably written off that and the McMorris endorsement to the usual, establishmentarian, unimaginative, pro-incumbent mindset that tends to take hold of most editorial boards. But with the ridiculously postured and embarrassingly argued logic of the McGavick editorial it is now impossible for the Times to deny that their criteria for endorsement consists of anything more than support for estate tax repeal.

It is tempting to deconstruct the absurdity of the McGavick endorsement line by line, but others have already done so, perhaps none as thoroughly as the Stranger’s Josh Feit. On issue after issue, on gay marriage, assault weapons, net neutrality, drilling in ANWR and teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, the Times has previously editorialized in support of the position opposite to that which McGavick holds. And on the biggest issue of the day, the steadily deteriorating war in Iraq, the Times has repeatedly argued against a course a Republican controlled Senate would surely vote to stay. But according to the Times:

Some see this election as a referendum on George W. Bush. If we did, we would be for a solid Democratic ticket. But like most Washington voters, we take our candidates one at a time.

I’d read on further but I scratched my corneas scraping the bullshit off my eyes.

This election is a referendum on President Bush and the Republican leadership, and unless you’re itching for a catastrophic ground war with Iran it is deeply irresponsible to approach it any other context. If Sen. Maria Cantwell had voted for estate tax repeal she’d have had the Times endorsement, and the fact that Frank would use his paper to prop up a failed Republican majority over this single, selfish issue is morally and ethically reprehensible.

The Times editorial board has become a joke. I have not spoken to a single professional journalist who has not rolled his eyes or derisively laughed at the Times‘ contorted logic and unmitigated gall. Even some of Frank’s own employees have expressed their disgust to me.

Not that any of this really has any impact on the actual election. David Postman writes:

Critics on both sides like to say that MSM newspaper endorsements don’t matter much in this age of New Media. But they must mean something given how much of the blogosphere was filled up with discussion about them the past week.

But David misses the point. Us bloggers and journalists and political activists do care about the role the op/ed pages should play in promoting public discourse — and passionately — and that is why it pains us so much to see Frank trivializing the opinion pages of the state’s largest newspaper. But why the fuck would the average Seattle voter give a Times endorsement an ounce of credence when the paper consistently supports candidates and issues contrary to the interests of their community? Us bloggers aren’t the average reader, and the truth is, the average reader no longer gives a shit about what that estate-tax-repealing, labor-busting, dog-shooting Frank Blethen thinks is best for them.

Local newspaper industry observers tell me that it was the bitter newspaper strike that radicalized Frank and flipped him over to staunchly supporting the GOP and its anti-Labor agenda. At the time, Frank threatened to move the newspaper’s editorial operations out to Bothell to join its new production facility, but stayed in Seattle fearing a public backlash.

Well as far as I’m concerned, good riddance. Go ahead and move your operations out to Bothell, Frank, and while you’re at it, you might as well change the name of your paper to “The Bothell Times.” At least that way your readers can rest assured that there will always be at least one honest piece of information printed in your newspaper daily: the masthead.

Both the Seahawks and the Eagles lost (a 61-yard field goal, dammit… what’s the chance of that?) so sit back and drown your sorrows in the intoxicating conversation on tonight’s “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: Are we on the brink of an historic military defeat in Iraq? I’ll be joined by Philip Gold, a former Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the conservative Seattle-based think tank the Discovery Institute. In the spring of 2002, Gold became one of the nation’s first prominent conservatives to oppose the upcoming Iraq war and the Bush/neocon agenda, and has since seen his dire predictions come true. In July of 2001 Gold predicted that Jihadist terrorist attacks were imminent. After 9/11 he warned that an Iraq invasion would lead to disaster. Tune in and find out why this lifelong Republican is voting a straight Democratic ticket in November’s election.

8PM: Q&A with Darcy and Peter. Two of the hottest congressional races in the nation are being waged right here in Washington state, and control of the House could lie in the balance. At 8PM, 8th Congressional District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner joins me for a campaign update, and to take your questions. At 8:30 we’ll be calling out East to the 5th Congressional District, where Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark is giving Republican incumbent Cathy McMorris fits. This is your chance to ask your future representatives about their legislative priorities in the new, Democratic controlled House.

9PM: Do you believe what you read in the papers? Former Seattle Weekly columnist Geov Parrish joins me for a tell-all about his old employer, and a blunt discussion about the state of the region’s print media. How much will we miss the Seattle P-I should Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen succeed in pushing it into its grave, and how damaged is the Times credibility from its relentless, self-serving shilling for estate tax repeal? Do you even bother to read the Times endorsements anymore, now that the only issue candidates are judged on is the estate tax?

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

UPDATE:
Darcy and Peter need your help! Click here to learn how and why, or simply give a few bucks directly through my Act Blue page.

I was in the middle of writing a response to the Seattle Bothell Times ridiculous editorial endorsement of Mike?™ McGavick, when I got sidetracked reading Jim Vesely’s latest column, “Mirror, mirror: Eastside’s urban politics.”

If Democrat Darcy Burner wins in November against incumbent Reichert, the heavy weight of running as a Republican and as a first-termer will be the burden that brings him down. That will turn the 8th into another battleground district in two years, as Burner will see a fierce attempt by the Republicans to reclaim the seat.

First, if Reichert loses it won’t just be because of shifting demographics or first-term vulnerability, and neither will it simply be due to this year’s unique political climate. If Reichert loses, it will at least in part be due to the fact that he is a mediocre congressman and a weak candidate who is facing an extraordinarily well-run, energetic and smart campaign from Darcy Burner. If Reichert loses, it’s because he got beat, and the fact that Vesely is already making excuses 16 days out gives a little insight into how weak a candidate Reichert’s strongest backers know he really is.

But…

If Reichert wins a second term, the Democrats will go away. Parties are like perfectly evolved sharks

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Back in January when I first started pushing the candidacy of Democratic unknown Darcy Burner in Washington’s 8th Congressional District, my righty critics ridiculed me — but reading between the lines you could always sense the fear. Over the past decade shifting demographics have transformed WA-08 into a light blue swing district that reliably elects Democrats to nearly every other office. And given the sheer mediocrity of the incumbent, it would have been foolish for even the most stalwart Republican to fail to entertain a little self-doubt.

But the trolls and (u)SP types really had a field day once I started touting Peter Goldmark as a viable candidate in Eastern Washington’s 5th CD, a district that Republican incumbent Cathy McMorris won two years ago by a 20-point margin, and which has twice given President Bush overwhelming margins. The taunts launched my way in posts, comments and email were just dripping with arrogance and over-confidence. As HA readers responded to my fundraising appeals with astonishing generosity, one emailer laughed at me for encouraging my fellow “deluded Seattle liberals” to waste their money on the “nutroots fantasy” of a Goldmark victory.

Uh-huh.

Yesterday two of the nation’s leading electoral prognosticators, Charlie Cook and Larry Sabato, both upgraded the race in WA-05 from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican,” while the New York Times followed suit today, upgrading their rating from “Safe Republican” to “Leaning Republican.”

Even McMorris has finally recognized the threat. Spokesman-Review reporter Jim Camden inadvertently overheard a candid conversation between McMorris and Idaho Sen. Larry Craig before a Thursday conference call.

“It’s a closer race than I first imagined,” McMorris told Craig before the teleconference was opened to callers.

Instead of being placed on hold and blocked, Camden was placed on mute, so he was able to hear their conversation but unable to tell them he was listening.

Goldmark is “hitting very hard” at her veterans budget votes, and on recent cuts in veterans services, McMorris told Craig. She asked the senator to emphasize the increase in overall veterans funding.

Craig told McMorris that Republicans are hurting across the country.

“The new numbers are just devastating,” he said.

Hmm. Guess I wasn’t so nutty after all.

Ten months ago few “experts” gave Democrats much of a chance in either of these districts, but strong candidates, current events, and innovative, technology-enabled grassroots activism have conspired to put both these races seriously in play. But now both Darcy and Peter desperately need your help to put them over the top. If you haven’t already given, please give now. If you’ve already given, please give more.

And if you’re absolutely tapped out, or have already reached your contribution limit, please email and call your like-minded friends and family nationwide, and personally plead with them to contribute Darcy and Peter. Be sure to include the following link — http://actblue.com/page/horsesass?refcode=OctDrive — or follow my complete instructions on political panhandling in last week’s post.

It takes more than just great candidates to turn this nation around. It takes you.

Back in the district where I grew up, the slimy Curt Weldon is trying to swift-boat Democratic challenger (and netroots endorsed superstar) Joe Sestak. Well, this is how you respond to a swift-boating:

Man that ad kicks ass. And so does Sestak.

From Sunday’s Seattle P-I:

P-I Endorsement: Burner is better

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

This newspaper didn’t endorse Republican Dave Reichert for the 8th Congressional District House race two years ago because he then faced a bright, terribly well-informed Democrat whose votes we believed would better represent the district and serve the nation.

This time, Reichert faces an even more substantial Democratic challenger in Darcy Burner.

Nonetheless, we believe it’s only responsible to be able to first make a case for removing and incumbent, no matter how impressive the challenger.

Reichert is a man seemingly pulled into elective office, first when the King County sheriff’s position to which he had been appointed was changed to an elected office, and then when asked to run for Congress, largely on the strength of his fame in the Green River case.

Once in Washington, D.C., to his credit, Reichert bucked House leadership and President Bush on some controversial votes, including stem cell research and the disgraceful business of Terri Schiavo.

But Reichert has been on the wrong side of votes regarding minimum wage, tax cuts, Tom DeLay’s ethics and, most recently, detention and trial of foreign detainees.

Burner, a former Microsoft manager, is as informed in her views as she is forceful in delivering them. Frankly, at a P-I Editorial Board session, it was difficult to tell who was the incumbent because her answers carried weight.

From how to balance the federal budget (and how urgent it is to do so) to how crucial it is to reduce human contributions to global climate change to Congress’ role in Iraq war policy, Burner has the better grasp of the issues and the greater passion to deal with them.

It’s a fairly strong endorsement, but notice how it’s neither mean-spirited nor totally one sided. And notice how it focuses on issues instead of some bullshit, I’m-rubber-your-glue, NRCC talking point about Darcy running a negative campaign. Notice how it’s written by grownups.

According to his blog, Mike?™ McGavick held a public event in Puyallup on September 7, in which “the questions ranged from where Mike got his car insurance to far more important topics like Iraq and Social Security,” and according to a source in attendance that evening, McGavick’s answer to that first question was curiously, not Safeco.

Why didn’t Safeco CEO McGavick insure his own car with Safeco? Well, McGavick reportedly explained that he wanted to avoid a “conflict of interest” — that he didn’t want to potentially put an employee in the situation of handling a claim filed by the guy who signs his paychecks.

And I suppose that’s a plausible answer. But…

Current Safeco CEO Paula Reynolds insures her car with Safeco. And so does McGavick’s predecessor, former Safeco CEO Roger Eigsti. They didn’t seem to think it was a conflict of interest to purchase insurance from one’s own company.

But there is another plausible explanation, which I’m sure has already occurred to many of you. See, if McGavick were to have applied for auto insurance from Safeco he would have been asked if he ever had a DUI. And if he had said no, a routine check of his records might have discovered it anyway. That’s not exactly the kind of information a new CEO wants whispered around the company water cooler.

Forgive me for being so cynical, but considering McGavick’s habit of spinning morality tales out of fictionalized anecdotes from his private life, I just can’t help myself.

Pat Tillman was an NFL star who famously joined the Army after 9/11, only to be infamously killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. Today his brother Kevin, who served with Pat in Iraq and Afghanistan as an Army Ranger, published a scathing critique of the nation’s policy and leadership.

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we get out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,

Kevin Tillman

Pat’s birthday is November 6. Kevin wants Americans to vote for change on November 7.

(My apologies to TruthDig for blockquoting the entire piece, but it deserves as large an audience as possible.)

The Spokesman-Review hasn’t yet endorsed a candidate for Washington’s 5th Congressional District, but despite the paper’s conservative pedigree, I’m guessing that Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark is being given fair consideration. Unlike their colleagues at the Seattle Death-Tax-Repeal Times, the folks at the S-R actually know the district, and thus they know that Goldmark really is a perfect fit. And serving a region in the midst of a quiet but crippling farm crisis that threatens to wipe out a way of life, the S-R surely understands that Goldmark’s populist, pro-farm agenda is absolutely critical to many 5th CD families.

Still, I’m guessing if the editorial had been written a month ago, Goldmark probably wouldn’t have gotten a second thought. Whether you view it as a pro or a con, incumbent Cathy McMorris certainly appears to be on the GOP leadership track, and it never hurts a district to have its representative closely tied to House leaders. In that context, even with reservations, one could have viewed a McMorris endorsement as pragmatic.

But that was a month ago. Since then the Democratic wave has built into a political tsunami that threatens to sweep all the way into the Inland Northwest. Democrats are almost certain to take control of the House, and a McMorris victory won’t do much for her district if her leadership track runs down the minority side of the aisle. Meanwhile, Goldmark is on the cusp of joining a freshman class that promises to be the most influential since 1994. If Eastern Washington voters want to play a role in creating a revitalized Democratic Party that speaks their language and understands their concerns… electing Goldmark is the way to do it.

And it looks like the S-R understands this. In the closing paragraph of their endorsement of Democrat Larry Grant in Idaho’s 1st Congressional District, the S-R made a point of concluding that Grant would “be in a good position to help Idaho if the Democrats regain the House.” With a Democratic majority virtually assured, the same logic can and should be applied to Goldmark and WA-05.

And make no mistake: Goldmark can win. The Washington Post reports this morning that WA-05 has become a key target in the DCCC’s decision to broaden the playing field.

The DCCC went up with ads in Washington’s 5th district today that accuse freshman Rep. Cathy McMorris [R] of having “gone Washington…the other Washington.” The commercial says McMorris voted to “raid” the Social Security trust fund. “Votes to jeopardize Social Security aren’t our values in this Washington,” says the ad’s narrator.

At first glance, the 5th district, which takes in the vast eastern part of the state, is not a typical Democratic target. President Bush won it 57 percent to 41 percent in 2004, and the district has grown increasingly Republican since George Nethercutt [R] ousted then House Speaker Tom Foley [D] from it in 1994. But McMorris is a freshman, and Democrats believe rancher Peter Goldmark [D] could make a real run at her.

The DCCC’s decision is backed up by what’s happening on the ground. A recent Goldmark campaign internal poll showed the race within the margin of error, and neither the DCCC nor the NRCC would be dumping money into the district if their own internal polls didn’t agree. Meanwhile, McMorris has suddenly gone negative, a sure sign that she and her handlers are fearfully looking over their shoulders.

A survey of local TV stations conducted by Frank Sennett over at Hard 7 has found ad buys totaling at least $288,930 for the DCCC and $232,745 for the NRCC — a significant investment for a relatively inexpensive market that was recently assumed to be safe Republican. And even McMorris’s apparent $631K to $399K cash-on-hand advantage isn’t really as advantageous as it looks; once you average in McMorris’s $268K in debt, Goldmark actually comes out on top.

Goldmark, who didn’t jump into the race until April, will likely raise over $1 million by election day, almost all of it from individuals. This spectacular fundraising success not only makes his campaign viable, it is irrefutable evidence of the broad, grassroots support that has fueled his surging candidacy. By endorsing Goldmark the S-R would recognize both the groundswell of support the charismatic Goldmark has generated, and the growing public disillusion with the Republican majority and their failed policies at home and abroad.

In a year when the House Republicans have been wracked by scandal after scandal, one might argue that it is hard by comparison to point to any one thing that McMorris has done to warrant her removal from office. But she has been complicit by default, and a vote for McMorris is a vote for the corrupt Republican leadership she has voted with 97 percent of the time… a leadership she is on track to join.

To me, the choice for 5th CD voters seems clear. It is a choice between a career politician who eagerly tied her prospects to that of a corrupt leadership, and a maverick Democrat who can bring an important new voice and perspective to the emerging Democratic majority. I’m not sure which way the S-R editorial board will go on this race, but current events and their recent track record gives me hope that they’ll give Peter Goldmark a fair shake.

[Please help Peter raise the money he needs to win.]

I desperately needed to veg out tonight, so I popped open a beer and turned on the tube — and the first thing that flashed across the screen was a Mike?™ McGavick ad.

Hmm. Apparently, he’s running for CEO of Safeco. Best of luck, Mike.

This is the ad that torpedoes Dave Reichert. It features Reichert, in his own words, explaining how his handful of supposedly “independent” votes against the leadership, actually came at the behest of the leadership.

And so, when the leadership comes to me and says ‘Dave, we need you to take a vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority, I… I do it.

So… um, I guess… that must be what the Seattle Times means when they say Reichert has a “conscience-driven independent streak.” Yeah, that Denny Hastert… he’s a regular Jiminy Cricket.

Over on Postman’s blog, Reichert spokesperson Kimberly Cadena foolishly goes on the attack, accusing Democrats of distorting the congressman’s words:

“It’s shameless that Darcy and the DCCC has taken a portion of Congressman Reichert’s explanation of his stands against leadership out of context.”

Uh-huh.

Well let’s put Reichert’s words in context, okay? I’ve posted a full transcript of his entire speech that day, and here for your convenience is an extended excerpt in which he tries to explain “the big picture,” and how to play the Washington “game.” I know it’s a bit rambling and incoherent, but try to follow along.

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.

How’s that for context? Not enough? Well view it for yourself.

Let’s just forget for a moment the Gary Ridgeway crack, in which Reichert trivializes the victims (they were only whores, after all) by jokingly comparing Democrats to a serial killer.

For the “big picture” is that Reichert serves a swing district, and in order to protect his seat and their majority, the leadership sometimes instructs him to vote against them. The Schiavo vote, well that’s the exception that proves the rule. That is the context of the excerpt used in the DCCC ad, and that’s entirely how it was understood by his fellow Republicans in the audience. How can I be so sure? That’s what his fellow Republicans have told me.

Back in early June when I first reported on this speech I recounted the incredulous reaction of a prominent GOP elected official who told me “Of course we understand that strategy… but you don’t come right out and say it in public!” And by coincidence we talked about this incident on Podcasting Liberally this week with state Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45), who was also in the audience that day:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/Toby.mp3]

“It was shocking,” Nixon said. As he later clarified in the comment thread:

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.

And how cynical is this strategy? Again, Reichert’s own words:

“I know the leadership is already planning to protect me, right. They will develop a bill that increases money for education that I can vote on and say I do support teachers.”

Reichert’s “conscience-driven independence” was a carefully constructed myth, which Reichert himself frankly (and stupidly) debunked before a TV camera. Reichert understood exactly what he was saying. His audience understood exactly what he was saying. One can only assume that even the disenchanted Republican voter that served as a springboard for Reichert’s rambling anecdote understood exactly what Reichert was saying.

The only people who pretend not to understand the context of this quote is Reichert’s spokesperson… and the Seattle Times editorial board.