HorsesAss.Org

After only a month on the air and a few weeks on the ground actively campaigning, US Sen. Maria Cantwell has widened her net approval rating from a mere 5 to 6 point margin in June and July to a healthy 17 point margin in August.

At 55% to 38%, Sen. Cantwell not only sits comfortably above the 50 percent approval mark where incumbents want to be, but also matches her highest approval rating over the past year in the monthly SurveyUSA poll. By comparison, both her approval and net approval ratings rank Sen. Cantwell in the middle of the pack amongst senators nationally, and several points above WA’s Sen. Patty Murray, who easily won reelection in 2004.

But a look at the cross tabs is even more instructive. Sen. Cantwell’s approval amongst self-identified “liberal” voters jumped from 60% to 34% in July to 76% to 18% in August… a stunning 32 point increase in net approval margin in only a single month, and the best approve/disapprove numbers she’s scored over the past 15. Sen. Cantwell’s bounce amongst “Democrats” is nearly as pronounced, climbing from a 62% to 31% margin to 73% to 19%.

The conclusion: ninety days before the election, Sen. Cantwell’s base has come home.

According to SurveyUSA, Sen. Cantwell’s approval rating now sits at or above the magic 50% mark amongst both men and women, and in all regions, age groups, education levels and races except Asian. She enjoys 52% approval with independents and 63% with moderates, while her disapproval amongst Republicans and conservatives is significantly softer than her approval amongst Democrats and liberals respectively.

Sure, this is just a single poll in a single month, and a lot can change between now and November, but none of the trends look very good for Republican challenger Mike!™ McGavick right now. His campaign tried to make hay about him “closing the gap” in recent polls, but in truth, it was Sen. Cantwell’s numbers that slid while Mike!™ couldn’t gain enough traction to climb above 40 percent. And the most recent Rasmussen Poll, taken only a week after Sen. Cantwell’s first ads started airing, showed the trend reversing with Sen. Cantwell retaking a double-digit lead. No wonder in its latest “Balance of Power” scorecard of the US Senate, the Republican-leaning Rasmussen listed Sen. Cantwell’s seat as safe Democratic.

Mike!™ has been widely touted as the Republicans best shot at taking down a Democratic incumbent. Hmm. Looking at current trends, that doesn’t say much for the GOP’s prospects this November, huh?

Darcy Burner was the only House challenger chosen to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this weekend. Wanna know more about the next congresswoman from WA’s 8th Congressional District? Watch the video. (Via MyDD)

Have you ever wanted to get down and party with Sen. Maria Cantwell and some of the state’s most prominent elected officials? Well tonight’s your chance, 6PM at the Tractor Tavern in Ballard.

Sen. Patty Murray, Rep. Jay Inslee, Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Adam Smith, King County Executive Ron Sims and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels will all be there, along with musical guests Will Wakefield & The Congress Hotel, The Bradbury Press, and Ellen Says No. General admission tickets are $25.00.

Hope to see you there.

The Seattle Times reports today that 39 state legislative candidates — nearly a third of all races — are running unopposed this November, a trend that has been increasing over time.

Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz says it’s nothing to fret over. “I wouldn’t say people should worry,” he said. “I think in Washington state, Democrats and Republicans are competing on the issues and are posing viable alternatives to the people.”

But he speaks from a position of comfort. Most of the unopposed candidates are Democrats, and the party already controls the state House, Senate and governor’s office.

Hmm.

As much as I like and respect Pelz, I can’t entirely agree with him on this one. Don’t get me wrong, I much prefer the status quo — a Democratic majority — over the alternative. But the danger in institutionalizing the current status quo is that we risk creating a party of status quo Democrats more focused on consolidating power than exercising it.

Still, I’m not all that worried, because I fully expect this trend to reverse itself in coming years as the netroots and other people-powered political forces begin to transform the Democratic Party.

This transformation will occur on two fronts. First, I absolutely believe we need to bring the “50-State Strategy” home to Washington state and field candidates in every legislative district in every election. Organizations like Progressive Majority will make this task easier as their efforts start to put progressive electeds into local governments in traditionally red districts. And as the netroots take a greater hold on the Democratic Party, this strategy will gain official support as well.

The second front is the Democratic primary itself. I can think of at least a half dozen Democratic legislators in Seattle alone who deserve a strong primary challenge from a committed progressive determined to fight for the values and interests of their constituents over the current same-old, same-old that tends to dominate Olympia. And as the netroots grow and we become an indispensable part of the Democratic message machine, I fully expect us to harness our power and influence to strategically target incumbent Democrats in safe districts.

It is common for my critics on the right to dismiss me and my fellow bloggers as tools of the Democratic Party, but they’ve got it exactly backwards. The Democratic Party is our tool… the people’s tool — as it should be — and we intend to use it to help elect candidates who are willing and able to enact a truly progressive agenda.

So to those 39 legislative candidates running unopposed, and the many more facing only token opposition in traditionally safe districts… enjoy it while it lasts, because nothing — not even incumbency — lasts forever.

By the way, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth“ is now the third highest grossing documentary ever.

From Sunday’s Washington Post:

The traditional fundraising advantage held by incumbent lawmakers — which Republicans have regarded as a safety wall in their effort to keep control of Congress — has eroded in many closely contested House races, as many Democratic challengers prove competitive in the race for cash.

In a year of bad omens for the GOP, the latest batch of disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission offers one more: Incumbency no longer means that embattled Republican representatives can expect to overwhelm weakly funded Democratic challengers with massive spending on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.

This trend is nowhere more apparent than in Washington’s 8th Congressional District where challenger Darcy Burner has outraised incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert two straight quarters. The Burner campaign has reportedly raised over $1.3 million thus far — more than any other 8th District Democrat at this point in the election cycle — with the overwhelming majority coming from individual donors.

Burner needs to raise another $1 million between now and November in order to have the resources to respond to the negative attacks that will inevitably come, so if you haven’t already contributed to her campaign, please give now.

Of course, even if Burner hits her target she will likely be outspent by her opponent, but not by nearly the margin necessary to drown out her message. Reichert had a helluva headstart, but he’s been struggling to raise cash even as his race has grown into one of the most competitive in the nation. Part of Reichert’s problem is that unlike his opponent, he’s simply too lazy to do the hard work necessary to raise money from rank and file individuals. (Imagine the Sheriff spending six hours on the phone, asking constituents for money.) But part of Reichert’s fundraising problem is that it’s simply not a good year to be a Republican in Washington state.

We all know President Bush isn’t too popular these days — especially in Reichert’s 8th district — a fact brought home by a rare presidential visit that only netted the congressman about $240,000. How disappointing was this total? Well, by comparison, a similar campaign stop by President Bush on behalf of 13-term Republican Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (FL-22) brought in a tidy $800,000.

It’s hard to know for sure, but it’s quite possible that Bush’s visit may have actually raised less money for Reichert than the backlash raised for Burner. Ouch.

Either way, one thing seems perfectly clear… the traditional advantages of incumbency don’t seem to be so overwhelming for Dave Reichert this year.

For those planning to tune in to tonight’s “David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, don’t bother. I won’t be on.

No righties, don’t rejoice yet. I haven’t been fired. I’ve just been preempted by tonight’s Seahawks game and the post-game coverage… as will occasionally happen throughout the season.

Guess we’re getting rid of the wrong sports team, huh?

Who is Dave Reichert really representing?

The Seattle Times editorial board excoriates the Bush administration today for its warrantless eavesdropping program, and congratulates a federal judge for ruling it illegal and unconstitutional.

Congress has been utterly useless in holding the administration accountable for key parts of its national-security policy and its handling of the war in Iraq. In the face of an outright abandonment of oversight of the chief executive, the task has fallen to the judicial branch.

Of course, I agree.

But it raises a question. I’ve been willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the Times endorses both Mike McGavick and Dave Reichert in November’s general election — if only to cater to its publisher’s fetish for repealing the estate death Blethen Tax. And yet the editorial board acknowledges that we are in the midst of “a fundamental struggle over the rule of law and checks and balances.”

Hmm.

I am curious to see whether the Times lives up to its own oversight obligations, or instead chooses the narrow economic interests of its owners over the welfare of the nation by endorsing candidates who would sustain a Republican majority that has willfully abdicated Congress’ role as a coequal branch of government?

5th Congressional District candidate Peter Goldmark has a post up on Daily Kos right now, and he’s online active answering questions in the comment thread. So if you have a question or comment for Goldmark, now is a great opportunity chat with him.

Oh… and while you’re there, please recommend his diary so that more Daily Kos readers can get to know Goldmark.

BREAKING NEWS…!

REUTERS, London — British police foiled yet another terrorist plot today, announcing the arrest of a 340-pound Egyptian man planning to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic using homemade explosives derived from his own body.

British authorities say the unidentified man planned to use the on-board lavatory as a mobile chemical lab, where he would render his own fat and refine it into bio-diesel while extracting urea nitrate from his own urine. According to an NSA terrorism expert who spoke on condition of anonymity, a typical “fat arab” could easily extract sufficient material from his own fluids to mix enough ANFO explosive to bring down a Boeing 747. “This is the nightmare scenario we’ve all been predicting,” the NSA official told Reuters.

In response, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) immediately instructed airport screeners to prevent fat people from boarding planes, and ordered all bathrooms to be locked and sealed on flights of six hours or more. A spokesman for the International Airline Passengers Association called the TSA’s new regulations a “mixed blessing” in terms of its total impact on passenger comfort.

A fat man mixing ANFO from his own bodily fluids? Sound preposterous? Well as it turns out, it’s not that much more ridiculous than the scenario we were treated to last week with tales of terrorist plans to mix triacetone triperoxide (TATP) on board jetliners using common household chemicals. According to The Register, it’s just not that easy.

Assuming you can get your hands on adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide…

Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together. […] Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It’s all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don’t forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked “perishable foods”), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You’re going to need them.

It’s best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate – especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation – to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you’ll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you’ll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours – assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven’t overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities – you’ll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit “mass murder on an unimaginable scale,” as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it’s true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it’s unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that’s about all you’re likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

[…]

To release the energy needed to bring down a plane (far more difficult to do than many imagine, as Aloha Airlines Flight 243 neatly illustrates), it’s necessary to synthesize a good amount of TATP with care.

Hmm.

But surely, the threat was imminent–the terrorists were only days away from carrying out their dastardly plan. At least, that’s what US and British officials told us, and that’s what the media dutifully reported.

Craig Murray, Britain’s outspoken former Amabassador to Uzbekistan is skeptical:

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn’t be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

And as it turns out, no charges have yet been filed in the case.

Which raises the question… was the danger really so imminent to disrupt travel for millions of passengers and warrant making flying even more uncomfortable than it naturally is by banning beverages and other carry-on items? Or was this just another cynical Bush administration effort to ramp up the fear at a time when his party’s approval is at a record low, and with a crucial midterm election just around the corner?

Forgive me for being suspicious, but it seems like every few weeks we hear of another dire terrorist threat that turns out to be a load of crap. You know, like that supposed plot to flood lower Manhattan by blowing up the Holland Tunnel, ignoring the fact that the so-called terrorists had neither the means, the training, or the know-how… let alone the brains to realize that water doesn’t flow uphill.

And then there are all those recent reports of suspected “terrorists” arrested for buying large quantities of prepaid cellphones for use as detonators or to assist them in evading surveillance. Again, a load of crap.

Of course there are real terrorists out there who pose a real threat. But if their goal is to strike fear in the American public, they face some awfully stiff competition from our own President.

“I grew up In Alabama, and I understand, and I know this from my own experience, that blacks are not the greatest swimmers or may not even know to swim.”
— Tramm Hudson, GOP candidate for Congress, FL-13

This was Katherine Harris’ seat. Figures.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is conducting an online poll to select three favorite candidates to receive special campaign support:

• A fundraising email from Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi or DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel to our list;
• A phone bank run out of the Democratic National Headquarters for their campaign;
• The feature spot on our Web site to get their message out, with a link to their campaign contribution page;
• An online chat with the DCCC community to exchange ideas on the campaign and the future of our country.

We all know that the battle to defeat Rep. Dave Reichert is going to be damn close; well this is the kind of extra support that could put challenger Darcy Burner over top. So I strongly urge you to cast your vote for the DCCC’s “Candidate for Change” today… and cast it for Burner. It’s also a chance to prove again how strong our local netroots are.

(And while you’re at it, why not write in Peter Goldmark? I did.)

The contest ends August 23rd, so vote now, and please pass this along as widely as possible.

In the weeks leading up to the Connecticut primary, Republicans described Democratic challenger Ned Lamont’s anti-war position as “extreme” and “out of touch” with mainstream America. In the days after Lamont soundly beat three-term Democratic incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, Republicans described Connecticut voters as “extreme” and “out of touch” with mainstream America.

But looking at recent national public opinion polls, it seems that it is the Republicans who may be extreme and out of touch.

Indeed, a new Elway Poll commissioned by the Seattle Times confirms that there is widespread support amongst Washington voters for either an immediate or timed withdrawal of troops from Iraq, with half of all respondents choosing one of those options… though only 21 percent of Republicans.

But the crosstabs are even more revealing. 19 percent of WA voters support immediate withdrawal — 27 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of independents — but only 5 percent of Republicans support this option.

So, um… who’s out of the mainstream here?

In fact, only 66 percent of WA Republicans support President Bush’s stated position of leaving only when Iraqis can keep the peace (which of course, could mean never,) and it is curious to note that in a recent Survey USA poll, that’s exactly the same percentage of Republicans who plan to vote for Republican Mike!™ McGavick in his lightly contested US Senate primary.

Hmm.

Early on, the press glommed on to the state Democrats’ supposedly divisive split over the Iraq war as the big story in the Senate race, yet the same poll shows Sen. Maria Cantwell garnering 90 percent of the vote in her much more high profile primary contest.

I’m sure that some of this disparity can be explained away by Mike!™’s lower name ID, but it begs the question: has the press been focusing on a bitterly divisive split in the wrong party?

I’ve only read the New Testament cover to cover once (and I have to admit it was more an exercise in opposition research than it was a journey of spiritual discovery) so correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember Christ teaching things like charity, loving thy neighbor, feeding and clothing the poor… you know, social justice stuff like that.

Thus it came as bit of a surprise to learn that Pastor Joe Fuiten — who routinely jostles with Reverend Ken Hutcherson for the role of Washington state’s loudest defender of Christian values — is in the process of turning retired ministers and missionaries out of their homes and onto the streets. I dunno… doesn’t sound very Christian to me.

I’m referring to the longtime residents of the Cedar Springs Bible Camp near Lake Stevens, who over the past thirty years, and with the Camp’s active encouragement and support, have built conventional homes on leased lots in the Camp’s five-acre residential area, and who have volunteered many hours of their time to Camp improvement projects.

The Camp leased lots only to “qualified tenants” with the stated purpose of providing low-cost, year-round residency to both active and retired Assemblies of God ministers, missionaries and lay people. Monthly leases remained low, sporadically rising by no more than 15 dollars a month from $10.50 per month in 1966 to $150.00 per month in 2004. Leases had historically been renewed annually at the option of the tenant.

That is until Pastor Fuiten’s mega-church, the Cedar Park Assembly of God, purchased the Bible Camp in 2005.

In September of 2005, Fuiten’s church offered residents a new lease that would increase rents by 83% over three years, a particular burden on the Camp’s retired seniors living on low, fixed incomes. But the most devastating alteration of the lease terms under Fuiten’s management was the elimination of the option to renew… destroying the resident’s resale value, and forcing them to abandon their houses and improvements in the event the leases are not renewed.

Under the terms of the new lease, there is only one potential buyer for the residents’ homes — Pastor Fuiten’s mega-church — which would be unjustly enriched should it choose to terminate the leases, or the tenants be unable to afford the new terms.

The residents have filed suit in Snohomish County Superior Court, and while I have no idea how the judge will rule, I’m pretty damn sure that if it were up to Christ, he’d feel a tad uncomfortable evicting a bunch of retired ministers and stealing their homes.

So now that the residents’ plight has been publicized, the question remains: what will Pastor Joe Fuiten do?