HorsesAss.Org

I’m on a little vacation (of sorts) so I thought I’d take the lazy blogger’s approach this morning and just throw stones at my good friend Stefan over at (un)Sound Politics.

Stefan, who fancies himself as a bit of a mathematician, has a post up from yesterday curiously titled “Darcy Burner’s Claim of ‘Raising More Money Than Reichert’ Is Bogus.” I say the title is curious, because it doesn’t change the fact that the official FEC filings from the two campaigns report that Burner, um… raised more money than Reichert in the second quarter.

That Stefan is up to his usual accounting tricks is no surprise — you know, tricks like arbitrarily deciding that Reichert’s $240,000 of “transfers from other authorized committees” actually should be counted as “individual contributions,” while not allowing Burner similar consideration. But even more unsurprising is the fact that Stefan seems to intentionally not get it.

It doesn’t matter if Burner raised $20,000 more or less than Reichert, and it doesn’t really matter where any of the money came from. What made the 2Q filing newsworthy is the fact that Burner was even close.

Reichert is an incumbent for chrisakes, in one of the most hotly contested races in the nation. So hot that the President of the United States of America flew cross-country to headline a fundraiser.

Local R’s led us to believe that Reichert might raise over a half million dollars on that day alone… instead he barely raises that much money for the entire quarter. It begs the question: what the hell was Reichert doing the other 90 days?

As Stefan and his friends are constantly trying to reassure themselves, Burner is a political novice, a first time candidate who really shouldn’t pose a threat to a (gag) “popular” incumbent. And yet she’s managed to outraise Reichert two quarters in row. Other than abusing one’s congressional franking privileges, campaign money is a candidate’s primary means of getting the message out, and as long as Burner can stay financially competitive she can make this a race.

UPDATE:
Oh… and to make Stefan’s new math even sillier, take a look at Daniel’s post over at On the Road to 2008. It turns out that if you really want to figure out who Reichert’s contributors are, his FEC reports aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. While Burner has a 100 percent disclosure rate, Reichert is only fully disclosing contributors 82 percent of the time.

But then, that’s kind of competency we’ve come to expect from the Sheriff.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
From The News Tribune:

“Those are very good numbers,” said David Wasserman, the House editor for the Crystal Ball Report, a national election analysis Web site. “If the numbers hold up … she’ll be among the top challengers the Democrats have fielded in the country.”

Speaking of transit, I’m in transit today, so expect some light posting.

Awww, what a sweet sentiment:

Light rail, like mass transit itself, has its share of earnest doubters and critics. Now that this crucial decision has been made to expand light rail, we hope that critics of the mode itself can shift away from debating the premise of light rail and focus on ensuring that its implementation is as efficient and cost-effective as possible.

Yeah… when pigs fly.

Many of light rail’s most vocal critics are the same people who ridicule efforts to mitigate the impact of global warming. They are obstructionists pure and simple, who simply do not want real mass transit. I guess they think it’s un-American or something.

Yet another light-hearted romp through local and national politics tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”– Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM. Here’s the line-up, but as always, things could change depending on breaking news and guest availability.

7PM: A third of Seattle families send their children to private schools, and yet study after study shows that on average, public schools do as good a job or better than private schools at educating the same children. Such a deal. Joining me to discuss the relative of merits of public vs private vs charter schools is fellow parent and blogger Mollie Bradley-Martin of The (liberal) Girl Next Door.

8PM: The fighting is escalating in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Israel is bombing Lebanon and apparently itching for a fight with Syria and Iran. Is this World War III? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich seems to think so… and says it could be a winning issue for the Republicans in 2006. What do you think… is World War III a good thing?

9PM: Seattle Times political writer and fellow blogger David Postman calls in with a battlefield report from the 2006 midterm elections. Did Sen. Maria Cantwell blink? Is Rep. Dave Reichert in trouble? Are we really in the midst of World War III? Here’s your chance to get your questions answered by a professional journalist.

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

According to the Seattle Times’ David Postman, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich thinks Republicans need to nationalize the 2006 midterm elections. And Gingrich has a great idea for a campaign theme:

America is in World War III and President Bush should say so.

World War III? Um… and that’s a good thing?

“It takes more than a few bucks and a slap on the back to run a Senate campaign,” Mark Wilson told me Friday afternoon, expressing frustration at charges that he was somehow “bought out” by Sen. Maria Cantwell.

“Maria didn’t need to offer me a job to get out of the race,” he bluntly explained. “I was done. The only thing missing was the funeral.”

Wilson said he sank about $20,000 of his own money into the race, but more significantly had sacrificed about $80,000 of income over the past 16 months. He had also begun to question whether his quixotic campaign was doing more harm than good, and he did not want to play a role in helping Republicans cement their Senate majority with a McGavick victory.

“That would be a tragedy,” Wilson told me, arguing that Democrats need to keep their eyes on the “big prize.” Wilson said he went into the race with eyes wide open, never expecting to have much of a chance of defeating Cantwell, and always publicly promising to enthusiastically endorse the Democratic nominee. A year and a half ago he thought he’d stick it out through the primary, but in recent months he started to fear that his campaign had not only become electorally futile, but counterproductive towards his larger goals.

And if lightening struck and he somehow won the nomination? Well, Wilson said, “that would have been a disaster” too. For as vocal as some of Cantwell’s critics have been they simply haven’t put their money where their mouth is. After 16 months of campaigning Wilson said he would be surprised if he had raised more than $40,000 total.

“That’s gas money,” a clearly exasperated Wilson exclaimed. “I didn’t raise enough money to run for City Council.”

For all the words of encouragement and slaps on the back he got throughout his campaign, Wilson exited the race with zero cash and almost no organization. With only 6 weeks between the primary and the general election, Wilson recognized that a victory over Cantwell would have been Pyrrhic, virtually guaranteeing a win by a well-oiled, well-heeled McGavick campaign. Likewise, a bitter and divisive primary battle would have left little time for Democrats to come together before the November election.

Thus his decision to support Cantwell now, rather than later. These are dire times Wilson warned, and progressive voters simply do not have the luxury of taking “the high road to Hell.”

Wilson is thankful for all the support he did get, and says he comes away with “no regrets” from this “enriching and enlightening experience.” But he does think that some progressives are simply unrealistic about what it takes to have a real impact on the political process, saying that if progressives wanted a nominee that more closely reflected their values they should have started organizing in earnest two years ago. He feels privileged to have had so many people open their hearts to him, but considering how few opened their wallets he seems somewhat taken aback by the vehemence with which a handful of former “supporters” have turned on him in recent days.

“I was out of resources. If people wanted me to keep going they should have put money into it… I wasn’t going to take any more food off my family’s table.”

As for the $8,000 salary, Wilson said there was no premeditation and no negotiating. He went into his meeting with Cantwell aware that his campaign was all but over, but came out an enthusiastic supporter. “What can I do to help you win?” he asked her at the end, to which Cantwell replied “Come work for me.”

A few moments later, after Cantwell had left the room, a top aide asked Wilson what it would take to bring him on board full time, and Wilson said he couldn’t afford to continue neglecting his business and his personal finances. The aide asked how much Wilson earned from his business. Wilson said $2000.00 a week. The aide said “done.”

Is he worth the money? Wilson says he has a mature business with lots of longtime customers, and generally works only 30 hours a week to earn his two grand, whereas he expects to put the same 70-hour weeks into Cantwell’s campaign that he had been putting into his own. As for Cantwell, she has consultants who earn a helluva lot more for doing a helluva lot less, so Wilson comes across as a relative bargain considering all he brings to the table.

And if you ask me, it’s also a pretty good deal for Cantwell’s Democratic critics, for the biggest thing Wilson brings to the table is himself. The “peace and justice” folks now have the ear of somebody who has Cantwell’s ear, and in that respect I suppose you could say that Wilson’s candidacy was a huge success.

For his part, Wilson says that he is grateful to have the opportunity to finish the job. Whether his former supporters choose to take advantage of this opportunity is up to them.

This is huge… simply HUGE!

The official second quarter results are in and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner reports $590,561 in contributions compared to GOP incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert’s $569,077.

What with a nearly unprecedented presidential visit and numerous other high profile fundraisers, I had just assumed Reichert would significantly outraise Burner in the second quarter, and to be honest, I was all prepared to spin a good second-place showing by Burner into a rhetorical victory. Now that I don’t have to, I’m virtually speechless.

And once again Burner spent less to raise more, closing the all important cash-on-hand gap to about $340,000. Burner now sits on $770,000 in reserves compared to Reichert’s $1.11 million.

This was Burner’s most impressive fundraising quarter to date, and according to the DCCC her $1.13 million total thus far puts her in the top fundraising tier for Democratic House challengers nationwide.

“Our momentum continues to grow,” commented Zach Silk, Campaign Manager. “We benefit from both incredible local support and national recognition that this is one of the strongest challenger campaigns in the country.”

It certainly is. The Republicans pulled out all the fundraising stops in the second quarter and Burner still beat Reichert’s totals. Money is all about getting your message out, and if Burner can remain financially competitive she can beat Reichert in November.

This remains one of the hottest House races in the nation.

UPDATE:
I’ve just cross-posted (somewhat) to Daily Kos. Please recommend so that we can get Burner’s impressive accomplishment as much national recognition as possible.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
N in Seattle, not quite so tongue-tied as me today, points out in the comment thread over on Daily Kos how truly pathetic Reichert’s fundraising performance really is. Reichert had claimed that “hundreds” of donors attended last month’s $1000.00/plate snack with President Bush, but…

Even if the “several hundred” attendees described by the King County Journal was a mere 200 at $1K apiece, a very large proportion of Reichert’s 2Q total came from that one event. And his absence of other funding resources might, in fact, be even more striking — Daniel K, referring to […] the P-I, indicates that attendance at the Bu$h event was more like 400.

Along with his other inabilities, apparently Dave Reichert can’t raise money unless he has the big boys around to hold his hand.

I’m not sure what line in Reichert’s report accounts for the money raised that day — perhaps the 239,880.03 of “transfers from other authorized committees?” But he only shows $186,388.29 in total contributions from individuals for the quarter compared with $418,627.89 for Burner.

That’s a tiny number for an incumbent in a closely contested House race, and it either suggests a surprising lack of support from rank and file Republicans or a stunning inability to raise money. Perhaps Reichert is waiting for the DNA evidence to come in before capturing his base?

I was just pleasantly surprised to hear that Tim Eyman’s I-917, the YATDCT Initiative (“Yet Another Thirty Dollar Car Tab”), may not qualify for the ballot after all.

Eyman had claimed to have turned in over 300,000 signatures, yet the Secretary of State’s office has only counted about 266,000. That means a rejection rate of about 15.5 percent or more would put I-917 under the required 224,880 signature threshold.

How likely is that? According to past performance, moderately damn. The SOS reports that statistical samples of last year’s initiatives showed rejection rates of 13, 16, 17, 19, and 26 percent. The office is preparing to do a statistical sample of I-917, and if it’s close they’ll have to verify every last signature. It may be weeks before we know the outcome.

Why would Eyman inflate his reported count by about 34,000 signatures when he knew that the SOS would eventually announce the real number? I can only think of two explanations: either he’s a pathological liar or mind-numbingly incompetent.

Hmm. Let’s see. Huh. I guess, when push comes to shove, I’m leaning towards… both.

We all know Eyman’s a liar; there’s no question there. But the very fact that this initiative is even close should be a total embarrassment to a man who has made a career out of the initiative process. And it is doubly humiliating considering the fact that from all reports, Eyman virtually stopped gathering signatures by the first week in June.

All it takes to qualify for the ballot is enough money to buy the signatures, and in sugar-daddy Michael Dunmire, Eyman should have had all the money he needed. Dunmire invested over $300,000 in I-917, and unless there was some kind of late-campaign falling out it makes no sense that he would leave the initiative on the bubble for want of an additional $50,000.

If Eyman knew he hadn’t achieved the 20 percent cushion all campaigns shoot for, it was totally negligent of him not to ask for the money to finish the job right. And if Eyman actually miscounted the signatures — after all the money Dunmire had put into the effort — well that’s simply inexcusable.

If I were Dunmire I’d take my business elsewhere. One way or the other Eyman simply can’t be trusted to do the job, and there are plenty of other high-paid consultants who know how to hire signature gathering firms… not to mention perform simple math.

Oh… and there’s one other twist to this story that could come into play. As Steve Zemke has reported over on Majority Rules, Attorney General Rob McKenna has issued a somewhat twisted opinion that states that a new law that requires a signature gatherer declaration to be printed on the ballot, does not actually require the declaration to be signed. The SOS reports that about 3000 of I-917’s petitions came back without signed declarations — that could account for as many as 60,000 signatures, more than enough to keep I-917 off the ballot if disqualified if a court overules McKenna’s opinion.

Law suit anyone?

The Seattle Weekly’s Geov Parrish is filling in for Ken Schram on KOMO’s “The Commentators” this morning (1000-AM, 10-12PM), and it will be interesting to hear how Parrish’s less curmudgeonly but equally passionate (and more wonkish) demeanor plays against John Carlson’s partisan-Republican-in-objective-pundit-clothing routine.

While I know Geov has been making a living writing and talking about politics for some time, he’s really a progressive blogger in spirit, so I look at his commercial radio gig as yet another example of the inroads we’re making in changing the local media landscape. Both KIRO and KOMO seem to get it — one wonders if AM-1090 will ever get on the local liberal talk radio bandwagon before the old guard steals their market?

The City of Renton’s plans to develop a mixed-use “retail urban village” on 68 acres formerly owned by Boeing at the South end of Lake Washington is sparking an international war of words. The project, which would include offices, a movie theater, 900 residential units and over 800,000 square feet of retail space is bitterly opposed by the Australian mall giant that owns Westfield Southcenter Mall just 7 miles away in Tukwila.

And as the Seattle P-I reports, the battle is getting nasty.

“To have some outsider try to put a jackboot on our economic throat is not going to fly,” Bill Taylor, the Renton Chamber of Commerce president and chief executive, said Thursday. “What plays in Australia does not play in Renton.”

Peter Buck, a lawyer for Westfield, said Taylor’s reference to a jackboot, a high black boot worn by soldiers in Nazi Germany, is extremely offensive. The jackboot reference is also on the chamber’s Web site.

“The chamber will live to regret it,” Buck said. “There will be a reckoning for the anti-Semitic attacks.”

Hmm. I think the “jackboot” reference comes off more anti-Nazi or even anti-Australian than anti-Semitic, but it’s rather hyperbolic and insensitive nonetheless in the way it trivializes the Nazi era. Meanwhile, Buck (not exactly a Jewish sounding name) goes way over the top with his mock indignation and threats of “regret” and “reckoning” on behalf of my people.

I don’t know much about the project in question, but personally I’ve been quite impressed with Renton’s renaissance over the past decade, and I’m not exactly a big fan of $2.8 billion multinationals coming into our communities and trying to dictate their development.

So as patriotic Americans I thought we might all join forces with our countrymen to the South and help the Renton Chamber of Commerce come up with some proper vitriol for belittling and vilifying the Australian invaders. I don’t speak much Australian myself, so I was hoping my incredibly diverse, educated, talented and foul-mouthed readership could offer some suggestions.

The comment thread is open. I’ll forward the best anti-Australian insults to the Renton Chamber for use in future media availabilities.

I’ve been hitting Rep. Dave Reichert pretty hard on his uncompromising opposition to raising the federal minimum wage, which at $5.15/hour now sits at a 50-year low, adjusted for inflation. So I thought it only fair to ask the Congressman to explain his position.

I didn’t get a direct quote from Reichert, but his press secretary Kimberly Cadena was kind enough to respond. She wrote:

Congressman Reichert voted no because he believes that minimum wage should be dictated by economic indicators and state and local governments, not the federal government. That principle works successfully in Washington State, which has one of the highest minimum wage rates in the country, higher than the current federal minimum wage rate. Even if the proposed federal minimum wage increase had passed, Washington State’s minimum wage rate is still higher than the proposed increase.

Hmm. This seems to indicate that Reichert supports Washington state’s minimum wage, but opposes one nationally. Yet this not only puts Reichert in the uncomfortable position of denying to other Americans the same benefits offered to his constituents at home, it also seems to put him at odds with the Washington State Republican Party’s own platform, whose section on “economic opportunity” includes:

Reforming the current Washington State minimum wage law to make Washington businesses more competitive.

So… if as Reichert (or at least, his press secretary) says, his principle on the minimum wage “works successfully in Washington State,” how exactly does one reform it to make WA businesses “more competitive?”

Here’s a suggestion: raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25/hour so that our businesses are on a more level playing field with those in neighboring states.

Barring that, Reichert is left in a kinda logical bind. If he claims that WA state’s nation-high minimum wage has not hurt the competitiveness of our state’s businesses, thus refuting the WSRP plank that calls for reform, he undermines the argument that raising the federal minimum wage would hurt the competitiveness of businesses nationwide. Yet if he supports the competitiveness premise of the plank, but refuses to level the playing field by raising the federal minimum wage, he’s really only left with one option: lowering WA’s minimum wage to bring it in line with other states — the lowest common denominator approach.

No doubt different states have different economic conditions and different costs of living, so if one believes in a minimum wage one can make a reasonable argument that it should vary somewhat from state to state. But we’re not talking about mandating anything close to a living wage here — even at $7.25 an hour a full time worker would earn well below the poverty line. The federal minimum wage is merely a floor below which the race to the bottom by low-wage employers can go no further. Like WA, other states can always set their minimum wage higher.

So I it leaves me wondering… does Reichert really support the concept of a minimum wage at all, or does he just assume it’s not such a big deal to his own constituents because they’re already covered via state initiative?

I just have a hard time understanding how the highest minimum wage in the nation “works successfully” here in WA state, yet raising it elsewhere would somehow hurt businesses and workers nationally. Perhaps Kimberly will explain further.

A little free advice to local politicians: don’t do The Colbert Report unless you are funny.

You know, there is a grain of truth to the popular myth of the so-called “Liberal Press,” in that despite the right-wing politics of their corporate bosses, rank and file reporters tend to lean a little more to the left. But the best example of journalists’ personal political bias comes not from a liberal skew in their coverage, but ironically, from the higher standards to which they seem to hold liberal and Democratic politicians.

A great example of this is the cynical, negative coverage of the Cantwell-Wilson rapprochement coming from our city’s urban daily, the Seattle P-I — a newspaper most honest observers would admit to being more liberal than it’s competition, the Seattle Death-Tax Repeal Times.

Yesterday columnist Robert Jamieson focused his cynicism on the inside politics behind Mark Wilson’s decision to campaign full time for Cantwell, and today an unsigned editorial solemnly urges the Cantwell campaign to immediately reveal how much Wilson will be paid for his efforts… you know, instead of waiting until the Sept. 7 reporting deadline.

Um… who cares?

First of all, I find this extreme curiosity over how progressives earn their money to be pointless and insulting. In interviews, one of the first questions posed to me is always “How much money do you make off your blog?” The answer: one or two bucks a day in advertising, plus the occasional beer money donation. (I make more in three hours on KIRO than I make from my blog in three months.) But if some union or progressive organization put me on the payroll so that I could continue doing what I do and still pay my bills… so what?

Both Jamieson and the P-I’s anonymous editorialist collect checks from the mighty Hearst Corporation, and nobody accuses them of being paid off… and the media in general has no ethical qualms about Mike McGavick’s mult-million dollar golden parachute so long as it is technically legal. So why the different standard for people like me and Wilson? Few people are wealthy enough or foolish enough (like me) to devote so much time to politics without getting compensated, so what’s the big deal if the Cantwell campaign pays Wilson to campaign for her full time?

Second of all… how can the dailies possibly justify all their cynical attention to inside political bullshit like this, when they are virtually ignoring McGavick’s own cynical approach to the issues? How about a column or editorial on McGavick’s intentional obfuscation of his position on reproductive rights?

“I do believe that choice should exist, but I believe choice should be narrow.”

Come on… what the fuck does that mean? Why not pin McGavick down on some specifics rather than delving into all this pointless speculation about whether a multi-millionaire like Dal LaMagna was somehow bought off by the Cantwell campaign? Gimme a break.

Sure, I’m into all the inside politics horse race crap, and I’m sure most reporters and editorialists are too. But that’s the least important part of this race. In the meanwhile, while we’re all debating the intricate workings of the Cantwell campaign, McGavick is criss-crossing the state in a fucking RV for chrisakes, pretending to be just an average guy with a sensible, moderate agenda… which we all know is a complete and utter load of bullshit!

McGavick wants a federal ban on gay marriage. He wants severe restrictions on abortion (possibly as extreme as South Dakota’s new law, but he won’t tell us, so who knows?) He wants to privatize Social Security and drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He’s opposed to Net Neutrality, but supports all the provisions of the Patriotic Act and the Bush Administration’s execution of the war in Iraq.

On all these issues McGavick is out of step with the mainstream of Washington state voters, and that might create a problem for him in November if voters actually understood his positions. But instead, all we read in the papers is cynical meta-analysis of whether Cantwell’s newest campaign staffer should actually be paid for his work.

But then, that’s the “Liberal Press” for you.

Yesterday I admonished Rep. Dave Reichert for repeatedly blocking a vote on raising the minimum wage, which at $5.15/hour is now mired at a 50-year low. (Although as far as I know he’s never objected to a Congressional pay raise.)

I implied that opposing a living minimum wage was simply a Republican Party value, but according to the National Journal’s Hotline this isn’t necessarily true of the party’s real “moderates”:

A group of 25 moderate House Republicans — most of them affiliated with the Northeast/Midwest-heavy GOP labor caucus — has penned a letter to Maj Leader John Boehner seeking a vote to increase the minimum wage before the August recess. The list of signees includes many of the House GOP Conference’s most vulnerable members: All three from CT, NY Rep’s John Sweeney and Jim Walsh, plus PA’ans Curt Weldon and Michael Fitzpatrick.

Hmm.

Reichert is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House. Vulnerable moderate Republicans are seeking a vote on raising the minimum wage. Yet Reichert is not amongst them.

So… is Dave Reichert a moderate?

UPDATE:
Hotline is quick with an update…

Looks like Boehner and Co released the Conference. By a margin of 260-159, the House this afternoon passed a non-binding “motion to instruct” procedure in support of upping the minimum wage to $7.25 per-hour. Though symbolic, the vote allows the vulnerable GOPers to point to an actual vote matching their promises. All the endangered GOPers on the letter voted ‘yea,’ as did Ney and Gerlach.

The vote also provides the Dems with a record of which GOPers voted ‘nay.’ Those opposing it, as Rahm surely scribbled down, included: Mike Sodrel (IN), Charlie Taylor (NC), Thelma Drake (VA), Dave Reichert (WA) and J.D. Hayworth (AZ).

So Reichert refuses to join vulnerable moderate Republicans in supporting a vote on the minimum wage. I suppose that just shows Reichert for what he really is: a vulnerable conservative.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
I just want to be clear about why this vote is so important. Vulnerable, moderate Republicans voted for the minimum wage, yet even when freed to vote his conscience, Reichert voted against it. That surely says something about Reichert’s conscience.

Yup. That’s a picture of me with Sen. Joe Lieberman. And I’m smiling. I wonder how this is going to play with folks in the “peace and justice” movement?