HorsesAss.Org

I don’t generally like to print rumors until I’ve confirmed them, but this one is too hot to wait for my calls to be returned.

Word is that State Sen. Bill Finkbeiner (45th LD) will not run for reelection this November, and that Rep. Toby Nixon will run to replace him. I called Sen. Finkbeiner’s office, and the woman I spoke to seemed surprised, but did not outright deny it, and promised to get back to me quickly with an official response.

Meanwhile, I just got off the phone with Democratic challenger Eric Oemig, and he assured me that he was staying in the senate race, regardless of who his opponent is:

“It’s never been about Fink. This is about making Washington stronger, and making politics better.”

I’ll update when I get confirmation one way or the other.

UPDATE:
Rep. Toby Nixon responds:

“My understanding is that the Senator plans to issue a press release on this issue at 11AM. I’ve been quite public with my intentions: if he does not run for re-election, then I will run for the senate seat.”

UPDATE, UPDATE:
It’s official:

“The first word that comes to mind when I think about representing my district in the Legislature is “grateful’,” said Finkbeiner, who was first elected to the House of Representatives fourteen years ago. “I feel incredibly fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve in the Legislature, but at this time my family and I have agreed that the time is right to step aside and give someone else an opportunity to represent the district as Senator while I turn my attention to a career outside of politics.”

According to Roll Call, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has chosen the first batch of 22 House challengers for inclusion in their coveted Red-to-Blue program… and looky whose name is at the top of the list:

  Darcy Burner (Wash. 8th)
  Phyllis Busansky (Fla. 9th)
  Francine Busby (Calif. 50th)
  Joe Courtney (Conn. 2nd)
  John Cranley (Ohio 1st)
  Jill Derby (Nev. 2nd)
  Tammy Duckworth (Ill. 6th)
  Brad Ellsworth (Ind. 8th)
  Diane Farrell (Conn. 4th)
  Steve Filson (Calif. 11th)
  Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y. 20th)
  Tessa Hafen (Nev. 3rd)
  Baron Hill (Ind. 9th)
  Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio 15th)
  Ron Klein (Fla. 22nd)
  Ken Lucas (Ky. 4th)
  Patricia Madrid (N.M. 1st)
  Harry Mitchell (Ariz. 5th)
  Chris Murphy (Conn. 5th)
  Lois Murphy (Pa. 6th)
  Heath Shuler (N.C. 11th)
  Peter Welch (Vt. At-large)

Of course, Darcy Burner is at the top, because the list is in alphabetical order, but the fact that she made it at all is both an indicator of how seriously the DCCC is now taking WA-08, and a tribute to Burner’s hard work and natural talents. Burner has proven to DC insiders what she believed all along… that she’s the perfect candidate to represent her district.

This is a big deal. A few short months ago both parties were writing off this race. Now, thanks in part to the netroots-fueled fundraising surge that helped Burner blow past her first quarter targets, the Reichert campaign is running scared and the DCCC is committing significant resources into the district.

“This is an exclusive program that rewards the candidates who and campaigns that are most skilled, not only at raising money on their own, but at getting their message across to the voters they hope to represent,” [DCCC chairman Rep. Rahm] Emanuel explained in the memo.

In the 2004 cycle, two dozen Red-to-Blue candidates each took in about $250,000 in additional donations thanks to the program, but the DCCC promises that this year’s effort will be even bigger, with the program launching earlier in the cycle and many more candidates expected to participate.

The Roll Call piece goes on to specifically mention nationally hyped Red-to-Blue races like Francine Busby’s bid to replace the disgraced Duke Cunningham in CA-50 and Tammy Duckworth’s race to succeed the retiring Henry Hyde in IL-6. But as I noted the other day, the highly respected Rothenberg Political Report now ranks the Reichert-Burner race as more competitive than either of those two high profile contests.

In addition to direct financial aid and support, the Red-to-Blue candidates names will be circulated to donors across the nation. Burner will also be paired with a Democratic Member of Congress for “mentoring.”

Mentors, [Rep. Adam] Schiff stressed, are chosen carefully. They essentially enter into contractual agreements, pledging to visit their prot

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Mike Brown gets a heckuva job.

The Burien chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight, and the 4th Wednesday of every month, 7 PM, at Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd ST. And… I’ll be there!

Yeah, I know… who cares about me? But they actually have some real guests lined up, including State Democratic Chair Dwight Pelz, and State Reps. Shay Schual-Berke (33rd LD) and Joe McDermott (34th LD). I’ve asked Sandeep to show up with a headset and microphone, just to put a fright into Dwight.

And if you’re a little further south, stop by the Tacoma chapter instead, which meets tonight and every Wednesday, 8 PM at Meconi’s Pub, 709 Pacific Ave.

Thank God Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly joined us once again last night, otherwise our panel of Podcasting Liberally regulars would have drowned in our own mediocrity. (Not to mention our beer.)

Joining Joel and me (Goldy) in our weekly, ethanol-fueled punditry was Mollie, Will, Gavin and Carl.Topic’s of discussion included former VA Governor (and possible presidential candidate) Mark Warner, current King County Executive (and possible cabinet appointee) Ron Sims, former insurance industry lobbyist (and future insurance industry lobbyist) Mike McGavick, plus mass transit, gas prices, the Iraq war, global warming and other trivial stuff like that.

The show is 57:09, and is available here as a 35.7 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.]

Neil Modie’s got the scoop in today’s Seattle P-I on a really major Federal Elections Commission complaint the WA State Dems plan to file against GOP senate candidate “Lobbyist Mike” McGavick.

The Dems allege that the revised compensation package McGavick struck with Safeco on December 6, 2005 — more than a month after he officially declared his candidacy — essentially amounted to an illegal, $17 million contribution to McGavick for “personal use.”

I haven’t had the chance yet to read the complaint, but my understanding is that the facts really aren’t in dispute… this will simply come down to how the FEC (and eventually, the courts) interpret campaign finance law. But should the ruling go against McGavick, the consequences could be huge. The Democrats are seeking “the highest civil penalties available under the law.”

I’ll reserve my comments on the merits of the complaint until after I’ve had the chance to study the relevant code, and perhaps discuss it with some legal experts. But the part of Modie’s article I found most interesting was the GOP’s official response:

“These are baseless accusations,” Julie Sund, McGavick’s campaign spokeswoman, replied Tuesday.

“The Democrats are obviously looking at the same polls we are. The race is getting tight and they’re resorting to early, mean-spirited attacks because the know the incumbent is in trouble and they want to divert attention away from the real issues in the race.”

Uh-huh.

Of course, if you’re going to categorize an FEC complaint as an “early, mean-spirited attack,” then I guess it’s worth pointing out that state GOP beat the Dems to the punch with their frivolous FEC complaint against WA-08 challenger Darcy Burner. Likewise, if it is fair to imply that the Dems’ complaint was prompted by concerns over a tightening race, then the same should certainly be said of the GOP complaint coming in the wake of Burner’s surprising fundraising results and rising profile.

Of course, the difference is, the GOP complaint was not only frivolous, it was trivial, involving a couple hundred dollars worth of volunteer work… whereas the Dems allegations are huge, describing a deliberate attempt to skirt the campaign finance laws by funneling millions of dollars directly into McGavick’s personal bank account.

In the battle of the FEC complaints, I say, score one for the Dems.

UPDATE:
Read the full text of the Dems complaint.

As reported yesterday on Slog, the Rothenberg Political Report, a highly respected and non-partisan political newsletter, upgraded Washington’s 8th Congressional District race between incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert and up-and-coming challenger Darcy Burner from “Lean Republican” to “Toss Up/Tilt Republican”… ranking it as one of the 14 most competitive races in the nation.

That’s right, WA-08 is more competitive than high profile CA-50, in which the much ballyhooed Francine Busby is fighting to succeed the recently convicted Duke Cunningham.

Burner had been maligned by Republicans (and ignored by some Democrats) as a “third tier” candidate with little chance of defeating Reichert, but the “Burner Buzz” (not to mention her impressive fundraising performance) has opened eyes in the other Washington. Locally, the GOP echo machine has graduated from snidely dismissing Burner’s candidacy, to ineptly attempting to smear her.

And in what is surely bad news for Republican hopes to retain control of the House, Burner isn’t the only unheralded Democrat displaying unexpected strength:

While Democrats have failed to recruit the top tier candidates that they would like in places such as Arizona 1, Pennsylvania 15, Missouri 6 and Iowa 2, they have broadened the playing field elsewhere and recruited enough credible lower first-tier/upper second-tier hopefuls to win the House if the Democratic wave is big enough in November.

[…]

We believe that the House definitely is “in play,” and the key to whether Republicans can maintain control is whether they can discredit individual Democratic challengers who otherwise would be positioned to win. We are increasing our estimate of likely Democratic gains from 5-8 seats to 7-10 seats (they need to net 15 seats for control), with a bias toward even greater Democratic gains.

Of course, all this horse race analysis means zilch if we don’t all do the hard work necessary to help the Dems take control… and locally, that means helping Burner win in November.

The political pundits now all agree — Burner can win this race — but only with your help. If you haven’t already volunteered or contributed, do it now, for if the Republicans retain absolute control in DC, we’ll have nobody to blame but ourselves.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Please join us for some hoppy ale and hopped up debate.

I don’t know of any special guests who have committed themselves to show up this evening, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw one or more candidates for the open seat in the 43rd LD. (That’s not just an invitation to the candidates… that’s a suggestion.)

For those of you on the other side of the mountains, please join Jimmy at the Tri-Cities chapter of DL, every Tuesday from 5:30 onwards, Tuscany Lounge, 1515 George Washington Way, Richland. Oh… and tomorrow night I plan to drop by the Burien chapter at Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd ST.

Apparently, there’s nothing “Lobbyist Mike” McGavick won’t do for a little campaign cash. After whoring himself for oil money in Alaska with Sen. Ted Stevens, and less than a week after holding a fundraiser with the most divisive, partisan Vice President in American history, the supposedly independent McGavick spent this past weekend in Nashville turning tricks for Senate Majority Leader Bill Fist Frist.

McGavick was the beneficiary of a fundraiser hosted by Sen. Frist’s VOLPAC, whose inadvertently gay-themed invitation became the source of much amusement in political circles.

It was with some trepidation that we opened a most interesting card, which announced on a blue-jeaned cowboy’s belt buckle something called the “5th Annual VOLPAC ’06 Weekend” in Nashville on April 21-23.

Problem was you had to unbuckle the cowboy’s pants and look inside to see what this was all about. Seemed a bit too “Brokeback Mountain.”

Imagine our relief to find only that we were “cordially invited” to the event honoring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and “Mrs. Bill Frist, M.D.”….

The back of the card shows the cowboy from behind with a red flowered handkerchief sticking out of his right pocket. Wait a minute — wasn’t there something about how this used to be some kind of code in the gay community years ago? A way to signal each other in crowded, noisy bars?

Um… yeah. Apparently, a red handkerchief indicates a penchant for “fisting,” and the right pocket signals the wearer is receptive to being the, uh… fistee.

A fitting metaphor for McGavick, who seems more than willing to bend over (forwards) for any member of the Republican establishment looking to drive home President Bush’s failed policies.

Rep. Dave Reichert goes out of his way to portray himself as a moderate, but a new, DCCC web-ad exposes his extremist views on stem cell research.

During the 2004 race, Reichert told FOXNews.com that he is “generally against embryonic stem cell research,” and he held to his position in 2005 by voting against final passage of HR 810, a bill loosening restrictions on federal funding for such promising research.

I haven’t seen any polling, but I’m guessing that puts him pretty far out of step with his district.

When it comes to FEC filings, the US Senate is so twentieth century.

Wanna know where Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner stands on issues? Go read her rather in depth (3100 words) Q&A over on Slog.

Hmm. If I ran a futile, joke campaign for the US Senate, would The Olympian cover it? Probably… yeah… because my futile, joke campaigns tend to be kinda funny, as opposed to Mark Wilson, whose campaigns tend to be just, um… futile.

Still, The Olympian apparently took Wilson seriously enough to give him some ink today for his campaign against Sen. Maria Cantwell in the Democratic primary, so I suppose it’s only fair to read what he has to say, and take him at his word.

A perennial fringe candidate who is running primarily on an anti-war theme, Wilson previously ran as a Libertarian against Rep. Jay Inslee and as a Green against Sen. Patty Murray.

Wilson said his criticism of the war has spurred all of his runs at office.

The run against Inslee as a Libertarian “was an opportunity to direct the conversation about the war,” he said. […] He cited similar reasons for his Senate run against Murray…

Yeah, that’s right… Wilson ran as the anti-war candidate against Murray, who not only voted against the war authorization, but who gave perhaps the second-most eloquent speech that day on the floor of the US Senate.

Whatever. While Cantwell is certainly more vulnerable on the war than either Inslee or Murray, I think what we learn from Wilson’s history is that his campaigns are more about Wilson than they are about any particular opponent. I don’t mean to knock him personally or anything — his behavior is pretty typical of politicians, and when I met him, he seemed like a nice enough guy — but it seems pretty clear that Wilson would be challenging Cantwell (from one party or another) regardless of her authorization vote.

And I certainly don’t mean to dismiss the genuine and passionate opposition to the war held by many of Cantwell’s critics. I was strongly opposed to a “preemptive” invasion of Iraq, and all of my fears and concerns have certainly been borne out in the war’s execution.

But… there’s more to being a senator than just this one issue, and before rank and file Democrats buy into Wilson’s hoo-hah about being the “populist voice” of the party, they might want to look a little closer at where this “populist” Libertarian Green Democrat actually stands on the issues.

Wilson said “90 percent” of his platform is unchanged from 2002, when he first ran for Congress as a Libertarian in the 1st Congressional District, which was won by Democrat Rep. Jay Inslee.

Uh-huh. “90 percent.” That means that on issue after issue, Wilson is not a progressive Democrat… he’s a Libertarian. For example, on health care, where Progressive Punch scores Cantwell at a perfect 100% (better than both Patty Murray and Jim McDermott,) Wilson had this to say on his 2002 campaign website.

2. What, if anything, should Congress do to expand health-care coverage?

Every attack on private health insurance markets should be resisted. A genuine free market in health care will encourage competition and help reduce costs. Comprehensive Tort Reform would take the bite out of insurance premiums and promote personal responsibility. Insane lawsuits awarding multimillions, punch taxpayers right in the fries.

That’s nearly a direct quote from the Cato Institute, the libertarian standard bearer whose Cato Handbook for Congress states the following conclusion in their chapter on health care:

Every calculated attack on private health insurance markets should be resisted […] Health care costs will remain too high and the value of health care insurance too inadequate until we restore a genuine free market in health care…

Unfettered private health insurance markets and tort reform? That’s not the platform of a progressive candidate… that’s the platform of insurance industry lobbyist/CEO/GOP candidate Mike McGavick.

All those self-proclaimed progressives who say they simply can’t vote for Cantwell because of her Iraq war vote are missing the bigger picture. Yes, the war was ill conceived, immoral, and incompetently executed by the politicians in charge. But it is also draining our nation of the resources necessary to adequately address health care, education, the environment, alternative energy and a host of other issues that form the core of the progressive agenda… issues on which Cantwell has not only been a reliable vote, but often, an outstanding leader.

Wilson on the other hand… as a Democrat, he’s at best a 10 percent solution, and if you want to know where he stands on the other 90 percent of the issues, you better read the Cato Handbook.

That said, go ahead and cast your protest vote for Mark Wilson if that’s what you really want to do. No harm done, I guess, as Wilson can’t win, and Cantwell won’t waste any time or energy campaigning against him. But anything you do to undermine Cantwell’s prospects in the general election is nothing more than a contribution to the McGavick campaign and the Republican Party that got us into Iraq in the first place.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has a column in Monday’s Washington Post, in which he warns about President Bush’s final thousand days… and it’s a must read.

The Hundred Days is indelibly associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Thousand Days with John F. Kennedy. But as of this week, a thousand days remain of President Bush’s last term — days filled with ominous preparations for and dark rumors of a preventive war against Iran.

The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’ ”

This is precisely how George W. Bush sees his presidential prerogative: Be silent; I see it, if you don’t . However, both Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, veterans of the First World War, explicitly ruled out preventive war against Joseph Stalin’s attempt to dominate Europe. And in the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, President Kennedy, himself a hero of the Second World War, rejected the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a preventive strike against the Soviet Union in Cuba.

[…]

The Cuban missile crisis was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in all human history. Never before had two contending powers possessed between them the technical capacity to destroy the planet. Had there been exponents of preventive war in the White House, there probably would have been nuclear war.

Read the whole thing.

From The Washington Post: “Nepal’s King Agrees to Yield Powers.”

Now if only our king would agree to do the same.