HorsesAss.Org

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.

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris deserves re-election in the 5th District because she is a good fit for her conservative district.

So wrote the Seattle Times in their Wednesday endorsement of first-term Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris. Which raises a very important question for 5th District voters: are you going to let a bunch of Seattle liberals tell you how to vote?

These are the people who are sucking your hard-earned tax dollars West of the mountains to build their gold-plated tunnels. These are the people who want to take away your guns and tear down your dams. Hell, the Times even opposes I-933, an initiative designed to protect your property rights… and they have the gall to tell you who is or is not a good fit for your district?

Screw Seattle, that’s what I say, and screw their hand-picked, establishment, career politician Cathy McMorris. There’s a reason rancher, farmer and Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark drew so many Republican primary voters in bright red Okanogan County: the people who know him best — Goldmark’s own neighbors — know that he really is the perfect fit for his district.

As for those pansy, gay-marriage-promoting, liberal city folk at the Seattle Times, the only part of the 5th District they know is the four lanes of I-90 that runs through it… and a couple of crowded men’s room stalls along the way. (If you know what I mean.)

Since posting the audio of Sen. Pam Roach’s infamous “Roses” speech, several Olympia insiders have emailed me to fill in the back story.

Apparently, Roach’s floor desk was right behind that of much beloved Sen. Irv Newhouse, a Republican so well respected on both sides of the aisle that they renamed the Senate office building after him. The story goes that Roach insisted on keeping a fresh bouquet of roses on her desk, despite the fact that they were aggravating the ailing Newhouse’s allergies. A former Republican staffer recounts the tale:

At that time Irv had many health problems including allergies. He was sneezing and congested. He was so beloved everyone was concerned. She had been asked politely by several members from both parties to remove the roses just in case that was the source of problem. Anyone else would have removed them. But hell no with that bitch, just let the beloved elder statesman suffer.

Oh, and by the way Pam… sources tell me it was Sen. Bob McCaslin, a fellow Republican, who removed your damned flowers.

For those who missed it, here’s Roach’s legendary “Roses” speech once again:

UPDATE:
Oh yeah… this year the Democrats have their best shot at unseating Roach — possibly ever — in the form of challenger Yvonne Ward. Observers tell me this race is a dead heat, so go show Yvonne some love.

The No on I-920 campaign just started airing their first TV ad in Seattle and Spokane.

What’s great about this ad is that it simply presents the facts. There is absolutely nothing to dispute here. And if voters understand the facts, a majority will vote against I-920.

The Seattle Times came out against I-91 today — the citywide initiative that would prevent Seattle from subsidizing professional sports teams — and the Stranger’s Josh Feit cries foul:

And that brings me to my gripe with the Seattle Times’ NO endorsement. They conclude by stating: “The SuperSonics might not be delivering like a 30-year bond, but the team still has a positive impact on businesses.”

Says who? Even chamber of commerce folks who spoke to our edit board didn’t peddle that whopper. […] I’ve been reporting on this damn issue for several years now. And several recent studies, one by the University of Minnesota, one by the Lincoln Insititute, one by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and another by the CATO Institute found that, if anything, professional sports teams may actually hurt local economies. The CATO study, for example, debunks industry claims that sports teams generate new consumer spending (they actually just suck up existing discretionary spending), and concludes, “the net economic impact [is] a reduction in real per-capita income over the entire metropolitan area.”

[…] The economic impact argument would be a convincing and compelling one…if it were true. It’s irresponsible of the Seattle Times to haul it out without proving it…or at least citing the source.

Um, Josh… you’ve missed the obvious source… Frank Blethen’s accountants. The business the team has the most positive impact on is the Seattle Times.

You don’t think the average reader slaps down their change for the Times’ op/ed section, do you? It’s scandal and sports that sells the dailies, and without the Sonics and the Storm, there’d be nothing to drive sales during our long, rainy winter. And just think of the additional advertising dollars a championship drive would rake in… should there ever be another Sonics championship drive.

Too cynical an analysis? How could anyone be anything but cynical about the Times’ editorial motives in the context of their incessant, dishonest shilling for estate tax repeal? Remember, this is the same paper that argued against the estate tax by unfavorably comparing our state’s tax structure to that of Sweden.

To the Times, I-91 isn’t about the Sonics or the fans or the business community… it’s about the Times.

From the Nation Journal’s subscription-only Hotline:

AD WATCH: He Did It
The DCCC is up with a new ad attacking Rep. Dave Reichert [R]. The ad features footage from a speech Reichert made in 5/06. REICHERT (from 5/06 speech): 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 do it.’ ANNCR: And when they told Dave Reichert to give billions to big oil, he did it. And a vote against cracking down on price gouging, he did it. Three times. Now we know why. Dave Reichert — another vote for Bush’s agenda (Hotline sources, 10/18).

Yeah, um… and this is the same guy the Seattle Times congratulated for having a “conscience-driven independent streak”…?

It’s not like Reichert’s admission was a big secret. I blogged on this speech back in June, as did the Stranger’s Eli Sanders. Video of the speech before the “Mainstream Republicans of Washington” has long been available on TVW. And even fellow Republicans who were there in the room that day roll their eyes and openly laugh at Reichert for admitting publicly — and on camera — what they all quietly understood. State Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45) was in the audience for Reichert’s speech, and just listen to this exchange between me and Toby last night on Podcasting Liberally:

“It was shocking,” Toby said — and it was. But apparently not to Times editorial writer Kate Riley, who in lavishing praise on Reichert chose to stubbornly ignore the congressman’s own explanation of his voting record.

It’s a funny world we live in where the media has grown accustomed to blindly repeating our politicians’ lies, and willfully ignoring their truths.

The No on I-920 campaign just hit the air today with its first TV ad, and I really wanted to share it with you… but Sandeep can’t seem to get into YouTube. So instead, here’s the Yes on I-937 campaign’s new ad: