HorsesAss.Org

I’ll be on stage at Town Hall tonight, and oh yeah… Janeane Garofalo, Atrios, Matt Stoller and David Postman will be there too. The event will be moderated by Angie Coiro of Mother Jones Radio, and we’ll be discussing “Politics and the Press: Fair and Balanced or Lazy and Cowed?” (I suppose the Seattle Times’ Postman will be arguing the “fair and balanced” side of the debate.)

Anyway, it’s a benefit for Foolproof, tickets are $25, $45 and $75 (all but 10 bucks tax deductible) and it’s gonna be a lot of fun. So please show up, cheer me on, and show your support for Foolproof.

A newly released poll conducted by Lake Research Partners shows incumbent Republican Cathy McMorris leading Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark by a 7 point margin, 45% to 38%, in Washington’s 5th Congressional District. This is actually incredibly encouraging news for Goldmark, especially when you consider the survey was conducted way back in mid-September… and man, things have changed since then. 350 likely voters were surveyed, with a sampling error of +/- 5.2%.

Despite her incumbency and name recognition advantage McMorris remains mired well below 50%, and her job performance rating comes in at a 13 point negative, 37% to 50%. That’s not a place an incumbent wants to be. The pollsters conclude:

With enough resources to communicate Goldmark’s strong messages, inform voters about McMorris’ voting record, and drive home the potent contrast between Goldmark’s priorities and Cathy McMorris’ special interest agenda, this seat is winnable.

“Resources”… that means money. And Goldmark needs whatever you can afford to send him. The campaign has raised $750,000 as of September 30, $80,000 ahead of their target. But they still need another $300,000 between now and election day to keep Goldmark’s ads on the air and give him a chance to win.

So… if you haven’t already given to Peter, please give now. 124 HA readers have already given over $5,800 via my Act Blue page. Let’s see if we can push that up over $7,000 by the end of the weekend. (And while you’re there, please feel free to throw some money to Darcy Burner as well.)

Oh man, it’s been a brutal media day for the candidates at the top of WA’s Republican ticket. But while the shiny-haired Dave Reichert is only getting his tires ass kicked in the local press (more on that later,) US Senate wannabe Mike?™ McGavick’s well-deserved beating is taking place on a national stage.

McGavick was absolutely savaged in the Washington Post this morning, subjected to the kind of blunt analysis and verbal thrashing only the deliciously acerbic Michael Kinsley can deliver:

If you knew nothing about Mike McGavick except what is in his TV commercials and on his Web site, you would conclude either that he is a moron or that he thinks you are a moron.

Hmm. I’m betting on the latter.

Kinsley deconstructs the McGavick campaign with devastating efficiency, highlighting the inane absurdities and “fog of generality” through which the candidate has chosen to present himself to voters. McGavick accuses Sen. Maria Cantwell of “following party over state interests.” To which Kinsley asks the obvious:

Why would she do that? Why would she put her party’s interests over those of her constituents? Who cares enough about either party to actually put their own political futures in peril? Answer: no one. Taken literally, the charge is absurd. But it’s not meant to be taken literally. It is just part of the miasma of themes and images that political professionals create around candidates. Cantwell is popular, partisanship is not. So blame partisanship and not Cantwell. Be for “families.” Be for “change.” Be against “Washington, D.C.” and “lobbyists.”

[…]

In a radio spot this week called “Not Paying Attention,” McGavick says, “Folks in Washington, D.C., you know they must not think we are paying attention” to “some of the things they are getting away with.” In a rare particular, he blames “automatic pay raises” for creating bad incentives for members of Congress. “We’ve got to have change,” he says, “but the only way to do that is to change who represents us.”

Maria Cantwell hit it big in the dot-com boom and is a very rich woman. She has spent tens of millions of dollars on her election and reelection campaigns. Whatever her flaws, she cannot possibly care about a pay raise. Taken literally, the notion that any national politician assumes that the voters and media and opposition party are “not paying attention” is equally ridiculous. So what is her motivation? What is McGavick’s, for that matter? (He’s rich, too, having struck gold in just a few years in the insurance business.)

Following up on McGavick’s charges, Kinsley logically asks, “Is Cantwell devoting her life to betraying the families of Washington just for the fun it?”

McGavick has no explanation, except to say that “this stuff is nuts,” that it is “partisan nonsense” and so on. But Maria Cantwell is not nuts. “Nuts” is not a plausible explanation. And without any specifics or a plausible explanation, McGavick’s complaints are exceptionally empty.

Knowing virtually nothing about McGavick, I saw one of his 30-second spots last week and took an instant, personal and possibly unfair dislike to him. And I wonder why everyone doesn’t have the same reaction to these patronizing, insulting commercials. Maybe some do — McGavick is going to lose, apparently — but more must be turned on than are turned off, because McGavick is not nuts either.

Of course we all know why McGavick hides himself behind a fog of generalities — because if he actually ran on the issues, he’d surely lose. This has never been more clear than in his recent spat with the Seattle Times’ David Postman over a months-old post about McGavick’s stance on social security privatization. McGavick didn’t dispute Postman’s reporting at the time. In fact, he even cited it from his own campaign website. Only after Democrats started citing the post did McGavick claim that Postman got it wrong.

As it turns out, Postman’s interview was somewhat prompted by a contest on Talking Points Memo seeking to get a straight answer from McGavick on whether he did or did not support phasing out Social Security and replacing it with private accounts. So it’s no surprise that TPM’s Josh Marshall chose to weigh in on the current dispute:

And now he says Cantwell has to take down her ad because it doesn’t reflect his true position. At least after changing it for the tenth time. Can anyone take this dude even remotely seriously? And how am I supposed to run Social Security contests with any sense of predictability or finality when we’ve got serial bamboozlers like Mike McGavick out there constantly changing their positions?

I need Regis here to give McGavick one of those, “Is that your final answer?” lines.

(ed.note: In private McGavick is known for supporting hardline privatization of Social Security. He just fibs about his position in public.)

Late Update: Maybe give a holler to the Postman guy at the Seattle Times and thank him for braving the hot swamps of McGavick’s bamboozlement.

Hey… thanks Dave.

And thanks Mike, for transforming a Senate race widely touted as the Republicans best shot at unseating an incumbent Democrat… into a national joke. No wonder McGavick recently traveled to a big DC fundraiser only to come back empty handed.

Brian Deagle, a senior attorney at Microsoft, was unanimously appointed to fill a vacancy on the Issaquah School Board. But it almost didn’t happen.

The board initially deadlocked: two in favor of candidate Leigh Stokes and two in favor of candidate David Irons.

After further discussion in closed session, the board returned with undivided support for Deagle.

I understand that Irons‘ next attempt at a political comeback will be a run for dogcatcher.

You can’t get much more old school than Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly, the curmudgeonly dean of Washington state’s political press corps, and a walking history book of the region’s political lore. So when this old media stalwart throws the new media a compliment, you can bet that he didn’t toss it off lightly.

In today’s column — “Democrats show signs of life in inland West” — Connelly laments how the Democratic establishment abandoned once-blue, rural, Western districts. But he sees a ray of hope.

Lately, prodded by blog sites, the party has begun to notice the 5th District in Eastern Washington — where rancher Peter Goldmark is opposing freshman GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris — and the open 1st District in Idaho.

Connelly sees a trend, in which “rural, moderate-to-conservative Democrats” might be brought back from the brink of extinction. Some of this renewed opportunity is being generated by a crop of extraordinary candidates like Peter Goldmark and Larry Grant, and some of it represents a backlash to hard-line Republican ideology and congressional corruption. But Connelly also credits the netroots.

The re-emergence of Democrats in the inland Northwest has a number of rich ironies.

The region was initially ignored by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its chief, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-Ill.

One who did notice was Markos “Kos” Moulitsas Zuniga, cheeky proprietor of the popular DailyKos Web site. It is read by thousands of Democrats across the country and has helped Goldmark and Grant raise the bucks needed to contend.

While the national Democratic establishment may still look on the netroots movement with suspicion, local observers like Connelly, who live and breath local politics, clearly see our impact. Democrats may not pick off McMorris, Sali, Pombo and Doolittle in this cycle, but the fact that these races are so competitive is a confirmation of the 50-state strategy the netroots have championed. Every dollar the NRCC spends protecting supposedly safe Republican districts is a dollar they’re not spending fending off Democratic challengers like Darcy Burner.

Sure, as Connelly makes clear, it’s only a “trend.” But as trends go, it’s a pretty damn good one.

[Cross-posted to Daily Kos, please recommend.]

From Talking Points Memo:

Okay, we’ve got an answer for Rep. Dave Reichert [R] of Washington’s 8th district. He says he doesn’t want to take a stand on Hastert until after an investigation has been completed.

Pussy.

When a poll came out earlier this month showing Democrat Larry Grant leading Republican Bill Sali in Idaho’s 1st Congressional District of all places, a lot of people were stunned, if not downright dubious. The Sali campaign immediately issued a press release attacking the poll, and claiming it was totally out of whack with its own internal polling… a poll they refused to release.

But if the GOP is not concerned about Sali’s chances in this predominantly Republican district, they’ve got a funny way of showing it. First the NRCC starts running attack ads against Grant. Then they spend over $16,000 to conduct a new poll in ID-01. (Guess that internal poll wasn’t so comforting afterall.) And now they’re sending RNC Chair Ken Melhman to Idaho to rally the troops.

Subject: **MEDIA ADVISORY** Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman Visits Idaho
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:14:28 -0400
From: “RNCommunications”

WHAT: Rally for Bill Sali for Congress Campaign

WHO: Chairman Ken Mehlman, Gov. Bill Risch, Rep. Butch Otter & Republican-candidate Bill Sali

WHERE: Idaho Republican Party Headquarters
912 West Jefferson Street
Boise, Idaho

WHEN: Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. MDT

Wow. That’s some “rally.” Gee, I wonder how many people they can fit in there?

Yup, nothing screams grassroots enthusiasm like holding a rally in an office cubicle.

The next stop on Mehlman’s whirlwind “District’s We’re Gonna Lose” National Tour? WA-08. (5PM, Bellevue Community Center… just in case you want to help out.)

Over on Slog, Eli Sanders has been holding Rep. Dave Reichert’s feet to the fire (here and here) over the congressman’s flexuous ramblings on the subject of global warming. First “Doubting Dave” told the Seattle Times that he questions the existence of global warming:

“The problem is, you have some scientists who say it’s happening, and some who say it’s not happening. The problem is the Sierra Club says that every scientist says it is,” said Reichert, a member of the House Science Committee.

“I’m going to wait until all the facts are in. There were many scientists who used to say the world was flat.”

Um, actually, scientists never said the world was flat. Only anti-scientific, religious nutcases did. But I digress.

Reichert said global warming is a “possibility” but views the science with the same sense of skepticism he held as a homicide detective for the King County Sheriff’s Office.

“I will be convinced when I’m convinced,” he said. “As an investigator, I’ve not been conclusively convinced.”

Uh-huh. Just like the skepticism Reichert showed when he had the Green River Killer in custody, but let him go, only to nab him again a decade or so later when the Sheriff was “conclusively convinced” by the DNA evidence.

But wait… I’m not being fair to Reichert, because according to his folks, the papers got it all wrong! In fact, the papers got it so wrong that “Reichert campaign spokeswoman” Kimberly Cadena actually called up Sanders to ask for an interview, so she could set the record straight, informing Sanders that he read something into the Times piece that simply wasn’t there:

Reichert has never questioned the existence of global warming. […] He continues to investigate the cause of global warming. Global warming exists. That’s the reality.

That’s right, and I’m sure Reichert will eventually finger the perpetrator, oh, saaaaay, sometime around the year 2024… or maybe not until the Cascade snowpack runs dry and the Southcenter Mall lies under six feet of water?

Look, we all know that Reichert’s not the brightest bulb in the GOP caucus (and from recent events, that’s saying something) so we expect him to say stupid things he doesn’t really mean… to say in public. But if I was Sanders I’d be little insulted by Cadena, who clearly doesn’t respect him as a reporter. What… did she think? Sanders would just accept that explanation and print a retraction? No, he did exactly what you’d expect a self-respecting journalist to do… he asked Times reporter Jonathan Martin to clarify exactly what he asked the congressman, and exactly what the congressman answered. Martin said he asked a two-part question: does Reichert believe global warming exists, and if so, what does he believe is causing it?

I tried to be as clear as possible in asking the question in a two-part way. It’s possible he may have misunderstood the essence of my questions, but I went back on the issue with him at least twice during our interview. His position on global warming was crystal clear to me. He just hadn’t been convinced of its existence. I think that’s what the article says. […] He said the existence of global warming, and human’s role in it, was a possibility, but that he hadn’t seen conclusive evidence to satisfy him on either of the questions.

Hmm. Not really a position you want to take in such an environmentally conscious district like the 8th. Which I suppose is why Reichert staffers stopped letting him speak on the issue, instead sending in Cadena to do damage control. What this tells me is that Reichert’s folks don’t have much faith in their candidate’s ability to accurately explicate his own stance on the issue. (Or perhaps, maybe they’re afraid he will.) You know… they think he’s stupid. Or wrong. Or both.

But the Times’ David Postman is more charitable. He gives the campaign brownie points for aggressively pursuing this:

Good on Cadena, too, for making the effort with Sanders. The Stranger isn’t necessarily a friendly place for Reichert, and others might not have bothered.

Hmm. Only thing is, there’s something that both Postman and Sanders have missed. Cadena isn’t Reichert’s campaign spokesperson. She’s his Congressional office press secretary. (At least she was a couple of days ago.) And to have an office staffer doing campaign work like this is a real ethical and legal no-no.

And while I suppose it’s possible that by the time Cadena contacted Sanders she had taken a leave from the office and officially joined the campaign, that doesn’t excuse the press release she posted to Reichert’s congressional website “in response to media reports.”

To me, that’s a pretty damn clear use of a government website for campaign purposes. Though if I’ve got it wrong, I invite Cadena to give me a call and clear things up.

UPDATE:
In the comment thread, Cadena clarifies:

I’m pleased to clarify, David. I took a leave of absence from Congressman Reichert’s congressional office beginning on Saturday, September 30th. As of Tuesday, October 3rd, I officially assumed the role of campaign spokesperson on Congressman Reichert’s reelection campaign. The press was notified of the change. I hope that clarifies any question you had, David.

Kimberly Cadena
Spokesperson for the Reelect Dave Reichert Campaign

Thanks for being such an avid reader, Cadena. I suppose I should have asked her directly, but the campaign has been so unresponsive to my queries in the past that thought didn’t even occur to me. And like I said, it still doesn’t explain the press release.

And by the way, when campaigns shake up their staff just five weeks before an election, it’s usually an indicator that they’re a little nervous. I’m just saying.

October 4, 2006

Dear Rep. McMorris:

I have been disturbed and outraged by the news coming from Congress this past week. I believe I must take action to express the growing concerns of voters in the Fifth Congressional District.

With this letter, I am officially asking you to take a public stand in calling for the resignation of House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert has apparently not only failed to protect House pages from further abuse by a member of the House, he also failed to hold that member accountable for his actions. His apparent willingness to suppress potentially criminal activity among House members makes him unfit for leadership.

I believe it is your duty to speak out on this matter at once to help cleanse Congress of a cloud of deep distrust.

Sincerely,

Peter Goldmark

My God was it busy at Drinking Liberally last night. So busy that we had to record the podcast in three separate segments. So busy, that Congressman Jim McDermott was in the house and we didn’t even manage to fit him in. So you’ll just have to settle for Congressman Jay Inslee talking about the Mark Foley scandal, and peace activist Cindy Sheehan living up to Podcasting Liberally’s high journalistic standards, and saying the word "fuck." And oh yeah, we talked about a couple statewide initiatives too.

Joining me in an inebriated, round-robin dialectic were Mollie, Lee, Carl, and Chad. In our first segment Rep. Inslee joined us to discuss the dramatic unraveling of the House Republican leadership in the wake of the Foley scandal. Then Sandeep Kaushik and 43rd LD shoe-in Jamie Pedersen sat down to argue against initiatives 920 and 933, respectively. And finally, Cindy sat down for an enlightenng and informal conversation about her accidental activism, and her new book "Peace Mom: a Mother’s Journey Through Heartache to Activism." And she said the word "fuck."

The show is 01:11:20, and is available here as a 53 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.

Rep. Cathy McMorris is back in Spokane, facing a tougher reelection campaign than I’m sure she ever imagined.

Peter Goldmark signs are sprouting like wheat across farm country, and campaign sources tell me that he closed the third quarter $80,000 ahead of his fundraising target. Goldmark didn’t jump into the race until April, yet he’s on track to raise over $1 million by election day, the vast majority of it from individual donors. Meanwhile, I’m hearing whispers through the grapevine that some independent expenditures could be coming into the 5th CD, further leveling the playing field. If that’s not a sign of growing confidence in Goldmark’s surging candidacy, I don’t know what is.

Anybody who expects a McMorris cakewalk simply isn’t paying attention. Goldmark is perhaps the best Democratic challenger in decades, and there hasn’t been an anti-incumbent mood like this in the district since 1994. President Bush’s approval ratings are now negative and trending downward in Eastern Washington, a dramatic illustration of the political climate change that is impacting reliably Republican districts nationwide. And if all that weren’t tough enough, McMorris comes home with her party mired in the ever-widening Predatorgate scandal.

Don’t think the backlash to the House Leadership’s coddling of a sexual predator can reach all the way into the Goldmark/McMorris race? Well, it depends on how McMorris handles it. If she unequivocally calls for Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds and others who shielded Rep. Foley to immediately step down from their leadership roles — and pledges to support new leadership should she be reelected — then perhaps McMorris can immunize herself. But turning on the GOP leadership can be a difficult thing to do, especially for McMorris who has been widely touted as on the leadership track herself. Throwing her party leaders under a bus could flatten McMorris’s leadership prospects as well.

Predatorgate changes the entire tenor of the race. Voters are losing faith in the ability of GOP to lead our nation — even voters in reliably Republican Eastern WA — and McMorris’s close ties to the House leadership has been transformed from a strength into a weakness. Now, even seemingly innocuous comments and public statements can end up raising issues McMorris would prefer not to raise. For example, on September 28, one day before the Foley scandal broke wide open, McMorris issued a press release touting her law enforcement credentials, which included the following bullet point:

• Co-sponsored the Child Safety Act to protect children from sex offenders

Yeah… co-sponsored the Child Safety Act with Mark Foley. (And to be fair, 87 other House members, but you get the point.)

On September 28 there was no downside to a boast like that. But since September 29 it raises the question of exactly what McMorris has really done to safeguard our nation’s children, that could possibly make up for her personal and professional support of the GOP House leaders who enabled Foley’s sexual predation?

Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, Alexander and Shimkus all knew the rumors about Foley — that he was a closeted homosexual who indiscreetly showered attention on young, male pages — and they clearly understood his “overly friendly” emails in that context… for why else would they have attempted to cover them up? When push came to shove, the Republican leadership chose to stand by a sexual predator.

Now McMorris needs to tell her constituents whether she stands by her Republican leaders.

Mr. Vice President… I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible. Hell, I think your policies in the U.S. are reprehensible. I think you are reprehensible. So there!

(Note to Secret Service: Please email me so I can give you directions to my house. And if it’s okay with you, I’d like to arrange a time for my arrest when you can handcuff me without my daughter being present. Thanks.)

From The Agonist:

A goodly portion of the reason gas prices have plunged lately, and a 38% decline meets my definition of a plunge, is due to the fact that Goldman Sachs tweaked the weighting on their commodity index. So what, right? Well, all the folks out their running managed futures funds, hedge funds and other various and sundry financial types, all had to go out and change their weighting of actual holdings in gasoline because that’s the benchmark their performance is measure by.

Here’s another analogy. The Dow 30 is composed of 30 stocks. There are a lot of mutual funds that own “the index” as we call it. All 30 stocks. But what happens when the Dow 30 changes the stocks that make up the index like they did in 2002. They removed AT&T, Kodak and International Paper and replaced them with AIG, Pfizer and Verizon. Now, all the stocks the index dumped took a dive, right? Because all the mutual funds, hedge funds and asset managers that hold the index dumped those stocks.

It’s the same with Goldman’s Commodities Index. If they reduce the percentage of gasoline in the index all the folks who follow the index’s weightings do the same and voila! Gas plunges.

Great timing too.

Which leads to three questions: what’s the economic rationale of making gasoline a smaller portion of overall commodoties in such a gasoline centric economy?

Why now?

And finally, who made the call to do so?

Might it have anything to do with the fact that the new Treasury Secretary used to be the Chairman of Goldman Sachs?