Reichert files pathetic Q4 fundraising results!

Rep. Dave Reichert’s year-end fundraising report just showed up on the FEC website, and man is it pathetic: only $236,612 net contributions for the quarter and $462,828 cash-on-hand at the end of the year. Compare that to Darcy Burner’s $339,495 for the quarter and $607,144 cash-on-hand, and you immediately understand why Reichert is so desperate to get a seat on the House Appropriations committee: trading earmarks for campaign contributions is his only chance of staying on a level playing field.

Two-term incumbents just simply don’t get out-raised, and certainly not by this margin. If he doesn’t turn things around and quick, the NRCC might just be better off cutting their losses and letting him sink or swim on his own.

Comments

  1. 1

    michael spews:

    Did you all just see what I saw? I guess the question is, is it going to be a Clinton/Obama ticket or a Obama/Clinton ticket.

  2. 3

    spews:

    @1…M…

    At the rate they’re going, one will shoot the other before all this is over.

    About the only thing Frat Boy Bill hasn’t done to play the race card is wear a robe and hood.

    The Piper

  3. 4

    GS spews:

    Obama would never pick Clinton as his running mate, he’d have to watch his back, and he knows it. He’d pick Edwards and get the haircut of his life!

    And as a good long time democrat, I just took my party oath and am voting for Obama in this states primary!

    I feel so much better now.

  4. 6

    rob spews:

    Goldy, when you get your unemployment check send it on to The Burner. Sorry that was even mean for me. I hate to see any liberal get fired, it just means more of you feeding at the trough. I just can’t help myself.

  5. 7

    rob spews:

    I looked as far as I could into the end of year reports. I noticed a few things.

    1. Burners Campaign office is on Stewart Street in Seattle. I am sure that will make the taxpayers in her district feel good. (Seattle isn’t in her district)

    2. A rough estimate looking at the PDF of her filing. 70 to 80% of the people contributing to her can’t vote for her. They are out of her district and in a lot of cases out of her state.

    3. Most of the contributions were for the primary. I don’t know the election laws though so maybe she can keep the money and maybe not.

    4. 70 to 80 percent of Reichert contribution were from people he serves and that can vote for him.

    5. Dave Reichert’s campaign office is in his district
    .

  6. 8

    Does your neighbor torture cats? spews:

    What if you learned that your affable neighbor who you enjoyed drinking beer with was snatching cats off the street and torturing them? Would you continue to associate with the guy? Would your respect for him be increased or diminished?

    On this blog there are regular posters Puddy and Piper. Someone argued in a different thread that although Puddy and Piper don’t share the opinions of most folks on this thread they should be still be treated with respect.

    But Puddy and Piper helped enable Bush to illegally invade and occupy a country and kill hundreds of thousands of it’s citizens. Puddy and Piper continue to support Bush’s use of incarceration of “suspects” without access to the courts as required by US law, and the torture of those “suspects.”

    Who is the worst human being? The torturer of cats? Or Puddy and Piper the enablers and supporters of mass killing and the use of torture?

    Treat these two with respect if you will. But I would argue that enablers and supporters of war crimes are not wiorthy of respect.

  7. 9

    rob spews:

    Goldy? Maybe since Darcy Burner has all of that “other peoples money” she could help you out and run an ad on this website.

  8. 10

    spews:

    rob –

    1. Burner’s campaign office is in Bellevue. 1607 116th Avenue NE to be exact.

    2. Once you have exact figures we’ll pay attention. 70 to 80% of what you’ve written, by my rough estimate, is meaningless.

    3. Like you said, you don’t know the election laws.

    4. 30% of his money is from PACs – PACs can’t vote. He’s also got far fewer contributors.

    5. See 1.

  9. 11

    rob spews:

    Re: 8, Does that mean that Hillary Clinton and the democrat controlled senate at the time voted for torturing cats? I knew she was evil but that is going to far.

  10. 13

    rob spews:

    Daniel K, when you know at least a bit about what you are talking about we will take you seriously.

  11. 14

    Fred spews:

    rob @ 7 & 12:

    Do you know the difference between a campaign treasurer and a campaign office? (Which does the FEC deal with more often? Bonus question: where is Reichert’s campaign treasurer located?)

    Which number is bigger: 72 or 109?

    How many in-district donors does Reichert list on this most recent filing? (Hint: it’s one of the two numbers above)

    How many in-district donors does Burner list on this most recent filing? (Hint: it’s another of the two numbers above)

    What did Robert Novak call Reichert in his column last week, and why?

  12. 16

    rob spews:

    RE: 14, Fred, do you know the difference between PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE and an office in Bellevue. Obviously not but you are a democrat so it is understood. Here is some dictionary help for you.

    PRINCIPAL:

    1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost.
    2. of, of the nature of, or constituting principal or capital: a principal investment.
    3. Geometry. (of an axis of a conic) passing through the foci.
    –noun 4. a chief or head.
    5. the head or director of a school or, esp. in England, a college.
    6. a person who takes a leading part in any activity, as a play; chief actor or doer.
    7. the first player of a division of instruments in an orchestra (excepting the leader of the first violins).
    8. something of principal or chief importance.
    9. Law. a. a person who authorizes another, as an agent, to represent him or her.
    b. a person directly responsible for a crime, either as an actual perpetrator or as an abettor present at its commission. Compare accessory (def. 3).

    10. a person primarily liable for an obligation, in contrast with an endorser, or the like.
    11. the main body of an estate, or the like, as distinguished from income.
    12. Finance. a capital sum, as distinguished from interest or profit.
    13. Music. a. an organ stop.
    b. the subject of a fugue.

    14. (in a framed structure) a member, as a truss, upon which adjacent or similar members depend for support or reinforcement.
    15. each of the combatants in a duel, as distinguished from the seconds.

  13. 17

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Why would the congressional Republicans want to waste an appropriations committee seat on a lame duck who won’t even be in Congress 11 months from now?

  14. 18

    rob spews:

    Re: 15, She may have a campaign office in Bellevue, she probably has one in California but her principal campaign office is in Seattle. According to Darcy Burner.

    For those of you who went to public schools, see the dictionary description of PRINCIPAL. ABOVE.

    Thanks for playing and I hope you enjoy the wonderful door prizes

  15. 22

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @4 You? A “long-time” Democrat? You sound like one of those Nigerian e-mails. But, by all means, go ahead and vote for any Democrat you like in the Feb. 19 primary. Me, I’m gonna vote in the Republican primary on Feb. 19, so my vote will count.

  16. 23

    Richard Pope spews:

    Rob @ 12

    That is the business address of Darcy Burner’s campaign treasurer, Philip Lloyd. He is a professional campaign treasurer, and handles the PDC and FEC reporting for a variety of candidates for state and federal office. There are a lot of advantages to having a professional campaign treasurer, when it comes to filing PDC and FEC reports timely and accurately.

  17. 25

    Richard Pope spews:

    Roger Rabbit @ 23

    Don’t you have to sign in at the Democratic caucus saying that you have not and will not participate in the caucus or primary of any other political party?

    Or do you just have to sign in and say that you have not and will not participate in the caucus of any other political party?

    The devil is in the details …

  18. 26

    spews:

    Richard Pope wrote:

    There are a lot of advantages to having a professional campaign treasurer, when it comes to filing PDC and FEC reports timely and accurately.

    Touché!

  19. 29

    rob spews:

    Re: 23, Richard, are you trying to tell me what the meaning of is, is? PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE filed with the Federal Election Committe tells me all I need to know. Thanks though.

  20. 31

    rob spews:

    RE: 26, So there are advantages to falsley reporting the location of your PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE. I guess what your saying is that is is some kind of shell
    PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE

    That wouldn’t surprise me considering who is running.

  21. 32

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @25 Good question, and I don’t know the answer, but I don’t see how they could enforce it. Nor do I see how they can hold people to it when they don’t publish the caucus rules on their web site somewhere rabbits can find them. I mean, I’m gonna vote by absentee ballot, and how the fuck do they know which candidate I marked on my ballot? And if I’ve already voted in the Republican primary before I show up at the caucus, how fair is it for them to kick me out of the caucus just because I didn’t know what the rules were? In addition, how much sense does it make to tell Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary, which doesn’t count, when all of our state’s Democrats could be voting in the GOP primary, which does count, helping our Republican friends to choose the weakest I mean best possible GOP candidate?

  22. 34

    rob spews:

    I will forward this to the FEC though. You guys seem to be saying Burner is lying to the government about her whereabouts.

  23. 35

    spews:

    rob – Are you really such an idiot. You stated that her “campaign office” was in Seattle. We’ve told you what that address is. By your own warped logic Reichert’s “campaign office” is in a fricking P.O. Box (P. O. BOX 53322, Bellevue, WA). Last I knew post offices weren’t campaign offices.

  24. 37

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @30- See #19 again. Why don’t I think it’ll happen? Because both of those candidates will want to pick a running mate for reasons other than who the runnerup for the nomination was — such as compatibility, ticket balancing, etc. For example, I would think Eliot Spitzer would be on Obama’s short list (but probably not on Hillary’s, because he’s from the same state). If our own governor, Christine Gregoire, is on anyone’s list it would be Hillary’s, because they’re from opposite coasts, whereas Obama might not need a westerner on the ticket as much as Hillary does. Maybe they’ll both figure they need someone a southerner, I hope not, but hell I don’t know. The point is, being the runnerup for the presidential nomination is the least compelling of numerous factors affecting the choice of a running mate, and I think one or more of the other factors will take precedence.

  25. 41

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    I can just see when the clerk at the post office opens up Reichert’s PO Box, and little Dave is in there:

    “Close the damn door! I am doing important campaign bidness here!”

  26. 43

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Rubberstamp’s fundraising numbers compared to Darcy’s don’t exactly make him look like a winner, do they?

  27. 44

    rob spews:

    Re: 35, Daniel K, I have no time for name calling, I just linked to where Darcy Burner said her PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE was located, you seem to disagree with Darcy Burner on her percieved location of her PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE.

    Daniel K. the interwebs are easy for concave chest liberals to name call on. If you want to do it in person let me know. Otherwise keep it to yourself.

  28. 45

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Gettin’ about time to grease up Dave’s ass for another presidential visit.

    (snicker)

    HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

  29. 46

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @44 “I have no time for name calling”

    You should make some time for name calling. You do that
    better than playing amateur lawyer.

  30. 47

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    So, Rob. Let’s get this straight.

    You really do believe Reighert’s PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE is in a P.O. Box?

    Right?

  31. 49

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    It’s tough being a billionaire these days, according to Business Week:

    “BusinessWeek asked financial information provider Capital IQ to analyze how this stock market correction has affected CEOs of major U.S. companies. … The resulting data show that market forces have chewed up the portfolios of even the savviest chief executives.

    “Capital IQ estimates that since October, five CEOs have lost more than $1 billion through holdings of their companies’ stock: Larry Ellison of Oracle (ORCL), Michael Dell of Dell (DELL), Micky Arison of Carnival Corp. (CCL), Jeffrey Bezos of Amazon.com (AMZN), and Rupert Murdoch of News Corp. (NWS).

    “More than 20 CEOs on the list have lost more than $100 million. The pain is widespread, too. Of the 450 major company CEOs analyzed, only about 60 escaped the last three months without losses. The markets were so difficult that only five of that group were able to achieve what these CEOs would typically take for granted — gains of more than $10 million each.”

    Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://www.businessweek.com/in....._top+story

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: Notice that Bill Gates isn’t on that list. That’s because Microsoft stock has been going up, so Gates’ net worth is increasing, not declining. Naturally your astute stockpicking hare owns MSFT, having acquired them last summer in advance of MSFT’s recent advance. My MSFT shares are doing nicely, thank you. As for my overall portfolio, it’s down a little this month, but nothing like the market drop. And there are great buying opportunities either right now or on the horizon. Personally, I think the economy and market are going lower, so I’m building up my cash position.

  32. 50

    rob spews:

    Re: 47. That is what he listed, you do know that several companies, government agencies etc. list their mailing address as a P.O box don’t you?

    Do you have some different information that his office is in Seattle?

  33. 51

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I’ve got a question for you supply-side gurus: When the billionaires are bleeding red ink, how much trickles down to the work force? Answer: Barron’s, a conservative investors’ weekly, says 89% of the jobs “created” last year came from a controversial statistical adjustment and do not represent real people working in actual jobs. In fact, if you “unadjust” the employment statistics for that controversial adjustment, the economy has been bleeding jobs ever since chimpface became president. So much for the theory that tax cuts for the rich lift all boats.

  34. 53

    rob spews:

    RE: 51, I would think you would provide a link to that info, unless it was the rodent issue of Barons which isn’t online as of yet

  35. 54

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    Do you have some different information that his office is in Seattle?

    No, no I really don’t.

    I think you have something here, Rob. You should assemble the media and have a press conference.

    Really, you will make it on the YouTubes, with your scandalous discovery.

  36. 60

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    Are the Trolls just getting dumber, or is the pay for professional wingnut trolling just getting lower?

  37. 62

    spews:

    So let me get this right. Darcy Burner’s campaign headquarters is in Bellevue, but you’ve decided to ignore that fact, and instead complain about an address on a report that you’ve been told is the treasurer’s office, but you’ve also decided to ignore that fact.

    So here’s what you can do: go to the address and check it out and see for yourself if it is or is not his office. Ask the occupant of the office. Then go to the campaign office and see if the Burner campaign is located there.

    Then after you’ve done that, go to Reichert’s P.O. Box address and verify where his campaign office, or his treasurer’s office is for that matter by doing so. Chances are you won’t find out at that address because no one works there except postal workers.

    So if there is any issue, it would be the fact we cannot trace who that P.O. Box belongs to without investigating postal documents with don’t have access to.

  38. 63

    rob spews:

    RE: 60, Speaking of uniformed, what was your point again at 47? It appears you didn’t have one but I am still trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

  39. 64

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    @ 62, I am sure Rob will not be fooled by your cunning rationality! Rob smells a scandal! And By God he will hunt this dog down if it takes every minute of his pitiful life and every penny in his piggy bank to get to the dark seedy underbelly of the

    PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE – gate

  40. 65

    rob spews:

    Re: 62, Daniel K. Excuse me for not believing you or Richard Pope. If he is your brother on believability I will take a pass. I will try one more time for you. Darcy Burner filed a very important document with the Federal Government stating that her PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE is in Seattle.

    If you want to call her a liar, I will finally agree with you. Darcy Burner is a liar and false campaign document reporter. Her real PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE is in Bellevue with a mailing address in Carnation.

    Are you happy now?

  41. 66

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    @ 63 , let’s see… I said

    So, Rob. Let’s get this straight.

    You really do believe Reighert’s PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE is in a P.O. Box?

    Right?

    I guess my point was to get you to answer the question.

    Yeah that’s it! I wanted you to answer my question.

    So… well I figure that settles that.

    No GO ROB! Make this PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE-gate scandal your life!

  42. 67

    rob spews:

    Re: 64, There is no scandal or conspiracy, she has her office where she gets her donations. Seattle.

    Any Questions?

  43. 68

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    @ 67 Gosh, Rob. That’s it?

    Damn, I am bummed… I actually thought maybe you had a point.

  44. 70

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    Now you are blowing my mind…

    So, what you are saying is that.. there is no point!

    You are deep, my friend. Very deep.

  45. 71

    rob spews:

    Re: 68, I have asked several times and you keep trying to be a comdian (no success there) Hey but thanks for playing and the lovely goldy will give your your own play at home game at the door.

  46. 72

    spews:

    rob – you stated way back at the beginning of your wild goose chase:

    Burners Campaign office is on Stewart Street in Seattle.

    We’ve provided you with information that refutes that claim.

    We’ve also indicated that the address at the URL you provided is that of the office of the campaign’s treasurer. This is easily verifiable information. You could try using the google.

    But, if you really believe you’re on to something, I guess you need to do what you need to do, which right now seems to be to make a complete fool of yourself.

  47. 73

    rob spews:

    re: 71, comedian, sorry. Now you can change the subject and attack a misspelled word. Take your hands of Goldy she’s mine!

  48. 74

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    I get a prize!!!! Thanks, but it was really nothing!

    …oh…. ha ha… that was the lesson.

    There is no point.

    Now quit rubbing it in, you big political guru you!

  49. 75

    rob spews:

    RE: 72, I can’t get through to you Daniel K, I didn’t say Darcy Burners PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE
    office was in Seattle, She did.

    I already agreed that if you think she is a liar far be it from me to disagree with you. I thought she was a liar and a white flag waver when she was a loser the last time. I am sure she will want to surrender in Iraq when we are winning this election cycle as well. If not, what will she run on?

    I am happy you took my advice and quit the name calling thanks, we don’t need it do we?

  50. 76

    rob spews:

    RE: 74, no problem and just because I like you you can take goldy home as long as you bring her back tomorrow.

  51. 77

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    @ 75

    I am sure she will want to surrender in Iraq when we are winning

    Now you are going too far trying to prove this “no point” theory of yours.

    Next you will be saying “Oceans don’t protect us anymore” and “We have to fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here” and “The had WMD before they didn’t have WMD” and “Do these pants make my butt look fat?” no point-isms.

    A good political guru stops before the suckers catch on that they are not wearing any clothes.

  52. 78

    rob spews:

    RE: 77, “Oceans don’t protect us anymore” Do you remember September 11, 2001?

    As for the rest of your rhetoric, The democrat majority senate and the republican majorirty house voted overwhelmingly to give the president the authorization to invade Iraq. I personally having served in a war was against it but the entire democrat and republican government voted for it.

    Just a bit of history for you.

  53. 79

    rob spews:

    RE: 77, “Oceans don’t protect us anymore” You should make that a democrat campaign slogan. “Oceans Protect us!” Do you ever wonder why Americans don’t trust democrats in national defense?

    I am not sure if you have heard about them yet but besides Jet Airplanes, Some countries (like Russia) have MISSILES TOO.

    File under current events.

  54. 80

    spews:

    I didn’t say Darcy Burners PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE office was in Seattle

    No, you said:

    Burners Campaign office is on Stewart Street in Seattle.

  55. 81

    rob spews:

    Good night all thanks for playing. If the wonderful Goldy is still tending the door she will give you’re consolation prize.

  56. 82

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    “Oceans don’t protect us anymore” Do you remember September 11, 2001?

    Do you remember the revolutionary war? Pearl Harbor? Anytime from the 50’s to the present with intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles trained on US cities?

    “Oceans don’t protect us anymore”? When the hell did they? What a big fat NO POINT.

    Just a bit of history for you.

  57. 83

    rob spews:

    RE: 80, Hmm wonder where I got that Idea, Could it be from, hmm I don’t know, let me see…DARCY BURNER MAYBE?

    COMMITTEE INFORMATION
    DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS C00412478
    603 STEWART STREET #819 Type: HOUSE
    SEATTLE, WA 98101 Designation: PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE
    Filing Frequency: QUARTERLY FILER
    Treasurer: PHILIP LLOYD

    http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureS earch/mapHSCandDetail.do?detai lType=candcmte&cmte_id=C004124 78&cand_id=H6WA08068&category= stateH_dem&stateName=WA

    Or maybe it was the DEVIL!

    Sorry Daniel K but you do seem to be a product of Seattle Schools.

  58. 84

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    Good night, Rob.

    If you wake up in the morning with a ring around your mouth, but no quarter under your pillow, just tell the john to pay in advance next time.

  59. 85

    Richard Pope spews:

    Rob — you are even more incorrect for blaming Darcy Burner for filing this report. Federal election law makes the TREASURER of a candidate’s committee responsible for all of the paperwork. The Statement of Organization for “Darcy Burner for Congress” is signed by Philip Lloyd, not by Darcy Burner:

    http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-b.....7940070169

  60. 87

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    democrat campaign slogan. “Oceans Protect us!”

    I imagine Paul Revere was a fool for even including that “Two if by sea!” stuff.

    Republican campaign slogan “Oceans protected us before! Against Nuclear missiles and British ships and planes!”

    Yeah, the republitards will eat that up!

  61. 88

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    erratum

    “British ships and planes”

    Should have read “Japanese ships and planes, and British ships”

  62. 89

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    Republican revisionist history:

    Paul Revere “One if by land and two if by… oh hell, forget that! Oceans Protect us!”

  63. 90

    rob spews:

    RE: 82, Why don’t we take them one by one.

    The revolutionary war: At the start of the revolutionary war we were British Subjects. Hence the term revolutionary. For those of you who attended Seattle Public Schools, The US at that time was a British Territory already occupied by British Troops. We revolted against an occupying British Government.

    RE: 82, Why don’t we take them one by one.

    The revolutionary war: At the start of the revolutionary war we were British Subjects. Hence the term revolutionary. For those of you who attended Seattle Public Schools, The US at that time was a British Territory already occupied by British Troops. We revolted against an occupying British Government.

    Pear Harbor: The Japanese attacked a US Territory (Hawaii) 2,551 miles from The United States, They also attacked Manila, another US territory that is 5,444 miles from the US. There was no attack during WWII on the US homeland.

    As for ballistic missiles and mooslimb maniacs in airplanes that was my point.

    Your point was that “Oceans protect us”

  64. 91

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Economists Rethink Free Trade

    “ … [S]omething momentous is happening inside the church of free trade: Doubts are creeping in. … Economists are … noting that their ideas can’t explain the disturbing stagnation in income that much of the middle class is experiencing. …

    “ … [T]he next President may be consulting on trade with experts who feel a lot less confident of the old certainties than they did just a few years ago … many in the [economics] profession are reevaluating the impact of globalization. They have studied the growth of low-wage work abroad and seen how high-speed telecommunications make it possible to handle more jobs offshore. Now they fear these factors are more menacing than they first thought.

    “ … [C]oncern is rising that the gains from free trade may increasingly be going to a small group at the top. For the vast majority of Americans … income growth has all but disappeared in recent years. … Inflation-adjusted earnings have fallen in every educational category other than the 4% who hold doctorates or professional degrees. Such numbers … suggest the share of Americans who aren’t included in the gains from trade may be very big. …

    “[Former Federal Reserve vice-chair Alan S.] Blinder warns the pain may just be starting. He estimates that eventually up to 40 million service jobs in the U.S. could face competition from workers in India and other low-wage nations. That’s more than a quarter of the 140 million employed in the U.S. today. Many of the newly vulnerable will be in skilled fields, such as accounting or research ….

    “What to do? Blinder argues for a big expansion of unemployment insurance and a major overhaul of the poorly performing Trade Adjustment Assistance program (TAA), which retrains manufacturing workers whose jobs disappeared. More vocational training and wage insurance, which would partially reimburse displaced workers who take new jobs at lower pay, also figure in his proposals. Both Clinton and Obama—and even Republican Senator John McCain—have similar ideas.

    “That’s not enough, says [Dartmouth Prof. Matthew J.] Slaughter. He sees a need for some form of income redistribution to spread the gains from free trade to more workers … he proposed ‘A New Deal for Globalization’ in which payroll taxes for all workers earning below the national median income level would be eliminated. Slaughter has talked with campaign advisers in both parties … it’s one more sign of how far the trade debate has moved.

    Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/2hbhfd

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: Making our workers compete with foreigners earning $2 a day never made sense to me. Where are the America-Firsters when it comes to protecting Americans’ jobs from cheap foreign labor? Who do they think will buy their goods and services when no one in our country is able to make a living anymore?

  65. 92

    rob spews:

    Re: 89, you seem to keep switching your points. That is not unusual for a liberal though. lets go back to 77 when

    Blatenly Obvious said.

    The Blatantly Obvious says:

    @ 75

    I am sure she will want to surrender in Iraq when we are winning

    Now you are going too far trying to prove this “no point” theory of yours.

    Next you will be saying “Oceans don’t protect us anymore” and “We have to fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here” and “The had WMD before they didn’t have WMD” and “Do these pants make my butt look fat?” no point-isms.

    A good political guru stops before the suckers catch on that they are not wearing any clothes.

    YOU DID SAY THAT BLATENTLY, Why are liberals so looney?

  66. 93

    rob spews:

    Re: 91, who was again that pushed for that free trade bill again and signed it into law. Oh I remember. It was Monica Lewinskys Ex Boyfriend. Bill Clinton.

  67. 94

    rob spews:

    Re: 85, Oh ok it was Phillip Loyd lying to the federal government, not Darcy Burner. Thanks for clearing that up Richard. By the way, If Darcy Burner can’t control Phillip Loyd what can she control?

  68. 95

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    Rob the naked Guru said

    Your point was that “Oceans protect us”

    No, Rob, that was your point. Before 9/11/01, somehow, Oceans protected us.

    Mu point is that the idiotic statement “Oceans No Longer Protect Us” is just that. An idiotic statement. The British that fought the new United States, came from a land across the ocean. If you do not believe that, consult a history book. And no, a book written by Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, or Sean Hannity will just not do.

    There was no attack during WWII on the US homeland.

    Again, read an actual book dealing with actual history. It may shame you, and make you feel foolish, but you will be a better person for it.

    As for ballistic missiles and mooslimb maniacs in airplanes that was my point.

    Really? So ballistic missiles and “mooslimb maniacs” did not exist before 09/11/01?

    Fascinating. It is hard to imagine, but I think you are not only a political guru without clothes, but you appear to not even have an epidermic layer.

  69. 97

    rob spews:

    Re: 95, We were the British before the revolutionary war. We were already here, we got here on British boats. We paid British taxes.

    It is very hard arguing with a product of Seattle Schools.

    Revolution means revolting against an existing government. It doesn’t mean fighting off an invasion from a foreign country.

    Even if your twisted logic was somehow accurate you would be promoting the point that the Ocean protected us, in case you forgot, WE WON. I know that the US winning a war is heartbreaking for liberals but hey , we WON.

  70. 98

    rob spews:

    Re: 95, can you find anywhere on this blog where I said Oceans Protected us? Didn’t think so, thanks for playing though.

  71. 99

    rob spews:

    RE: 86, you provide an editorial with no facts. That is waht liberals are famous for but I don’t buy your editorials, sorry and thanks.

    Want me to point you to an Ann Coulter Column, Same difference except she does have facts.

  72. 100

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Why You Shouldn’t Fly Until Bush Leaves The White House

    “After mechanics at Northwest Airlines went out on strike on Aug. 20, 2005, Federal Aviation Administration safety inspector Mark Lund began to see troubling signs. One replacement mechanic didn’t know how to test an engine. Another couldn’t close a cabin door. Many did not seem properly trained. In Lund’s view, their inexperience resulted in dangerous mistakes. …

    ” … Lund fired off a … letter to his supervisors and to FAA headquarters in Washington. … Claiming that ‘a situation exists that jeopardizes life,’ Lund proposed cutting back on Northwest’s flight schedule until mechanics and inspectors could do their job ‘without error.’ But instead of taking … action against the airline, the agency punished him. … Lund’s supervisors confiscated the badge that gave him access to Northwest’s facilities and gave him a desk job. …

    “Lund’s story shines a spotlight on a conflict that most passen­gers have no idea exists: the one between safety inspectors and airlines. The inspectors are the … cops who ensure that … an aircraft is in good working order. … When an inspector launches a formal investigation into an apparent safety violation at a passenger airline, something that happened more than 200 times last year, it often triggers costly repairs ….

    “Several safety inspectors told Business Week that they had also experienced or witnessed retaliation. … The House aviation subcommittee is probing an episode in which FAA management allegedly punished an inspector in 2007 …. Worried that some of the aluminum skins on Southwest’s (LUV) older Boeing 737s were prone to cracking, this inspector called for the planes to be rotated out of the fleet until they could all be repaired …. He was reassigned ….

    “Several safety inspectors interviewed by Business Week said the pressure not to impose big expenses on the carriers increased after the September 11 terrorist attacks, which threw the airline industry into an economic tailspin. They said … this led to a decrease in the reporting of safety violations. …

    “In Mark Lund’s case, Northwest … managed to get him temporarily silenced. But the airline’s problems continued to mount. During the first six weeks of the strike inspectors identified at least 121 safety problems stemming from workers’ lack of training and inability to ‘properly complete maintenance functions,’ according to the IG report. … [A]t least one of these incidents was quite serious … four tires blew out when a Boeing 757 touched ground in Detroit, a potentially life-threatening safety failure. …

    “In early September, 2005, the IG’s office dispatched a team to investigate Lund’s complaints. Its staff determined that other inspectors shared his concerns; they reported that ‘replacement workers were not receiving proper training and were not properly addressing technical problems as they arose,’ according to the IG report. The inspectors also said that FAA management discouraged levying fines against Northwest, ‘thus leading to ineffective oversight of the carrier.’

    ” … [T]he Inspector General’s office brokered a deal that allowed [Lund] to return to his former duties …. Once reinstated, he got to work investigating the emergency 757 landing in Detroit. Lund uncovered photos and other documents indicating that in Seattle a replacement mechanic had inadvertently jammed a brake cable. This prevented full release of the brake, causing the tires to blow out upon landing ….

    “Lund sent off another … recommendation on … describing his findings. … FAA management started to try to fire him. Supervisors started criticizing him for small errors. His directions were suddenly sent to him in writing and he was given strict deadlines for the completion of tasks. …”

    Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynrsl7

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: Another threat to life and limb brought to you by the political party that doesn’t believe in government oversight of private enterprise and thinks the best regulation is no regulation.

    Looking the other way at incompetent aircraft maintenance and muzzling FAA inspectors is only way facet of a broad array of safety problems threatening the lives of commercial aircraft passengers. In previous comments on this blog, I reported that near-misses have skyrocketed under the Bush administration.

    Crowded skies, understaffing of control towers and traffic control centers, and lax oversight of airline safety add up to a dangerous situation for the traveling public.

  73. 101

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    On second thought, go to sleep Rob.

    You are a little too stupid to waste time on.

  74. 103

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @99 If you think Barron’s got the facts wrong, send your complaint to them, not me. P.S., don’t forget to complain about their “liberal” bias. harharharharhar

  75. 104

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @99 You asked for a cite and I gave it to you, asshole. This matter is now closed.

  76. 105

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    @ 104 Roger, this one (rob) is a bit “light” on the uptake.

    Not worth the pixels used making him look like the ass he is. He does a plenty good job himself.

  77. 106

    rob spews:

    RE: 101, thanks I think I will, It was fun spanking 4 liberals with half my brain tyed behind my back though.

    The Beautiful goldy at the door will give you your going away prizes.

  78. 107

    rob spews:

    Re: 104. I asked for real facts not an editorial. Sorry you had to revert back to that libreral (I’ll call you a name to show you how tuff I am) meme. YOu are a pussy rabbit. If you have a problem with that give me your email and we can meet and talk about it. OK?

  79. 108

    The Blatantly Obvious spews:

    It was fun spanking 4 liberals with half my brain tyed behind my back though.

    Yeah, that was a real spanking you gave us.

    We should be ashamed.

  80. 111

    rob spews:

    Goodnight pussy’s, since were calling names I might as well join the club.

    Liberals suck , sorry but it’s true.

  81. 112

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @107 I told you where you can meet me. Let me know you’re coming and I’ll be there.

  82. 113

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @110 No, and you’re not getting my phone number or social security number, either. See #113.

  83. 114

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @107 I’m not your fucking research assistant. If you don’t know how to look something up on the internet or in a library, ask your kid sister to show you how.

  84. 115

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Port of Seattle Tops List of Tax-Raisers

    The fishwrapper says of all the taxing districts in King County, the Port of Seattle raised 2008 taxes the most:

    “The average King County homeowner will pay about 6.5 percent more in property taxes in 2008 ….

    “The Port of Seattle raised its levy by 7.5 percent, not counting a separate increase for new construction, the largest increase for an existing jurisdiction of its size.”

    Quoted under fair use; for complete article and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/2sklv5

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: This agency has a serious public relations problem. They should look out the window at the angry mob forming in front of their headquarters.

    The same article also says,

    “Total 2008 tax collections, including new construction, will rise 8.2 percent to $3.2 billion — considerably more than the 2007 increase of 5.9 percent and the 2006 increase of 4.5 percent.”

    Given that home values are falling, incomes are stagnant, and the economy is falling into a possibly deep and prolonged recession, a bit more restraint on the part of our local taxing districts is in order. The people who run these entities need to realize that over the next couple of years many of the people paying these taxes will have less, not more, money to pay them with.

    And,

    “Tax increases vary dramatically from one tax district to another. King County’s highest average … is on Mercer Island, where the owner of the typical $1.1 million home will see a $558 tax increase to $7,952.”

    I have suspected for years that the property tax system favors the rich, and this proves on. I pay about 30% more per $1,000 of valuation than the owner of that “typical $1.1 million home.”

  85. 117

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The Times article says all 3 of the dropped show hosts will still “fill in as needed.” That suggests Goldy still might get some occasional work on KIRO.

  86. 119

    Daddy Love spews:

    4 GS

    Umm, you’d better attend a caucus on February 9 for Obama instead since that’s, you know, what counts.

  87. 120

    correctnotright spews:

    @118 hahahah
    what a maroon – poor rob-erta. The filing notice says principal campaign COMMITTEE – for filing purposes that is the treasurer – not priciple campaign OFFICE. But asking her to read and comprehend is probably too much – besides it is the fault of the liberal media and Bill Clinton that Rob-erta can’t read and comprehend…

    I guess if she (Rob- erta) had half her brain tied behind her back it was in a knot so small that she couldn’t find said half-brain when she needed it.

  88. 121

    Daddy Love spews:

    29 rob

    What he’s trying to tell you is that your childish repetition of an insignifcant detail that has now been adequately explained is not a substitute for political discussion or debate.

  89. 122

    Daddy Love spews:

    44 rob

    Yeah, you have “no time for name calling” except to slam “concave chest liberals.” Pot, meet kettle.

    Why are Republicans always madly projecting?

  90. 123

    rhp6033 spews:

    Personally, I’m still chuckling over the visual image of Reichart’s principle campaign office being located in a P.O. Box. They could put in Reichart’s brain, along with that of his campaign managers, staff, and volunteers, and still have plenty of room left over….;)

    Yea, it’s a silly joke. But not nearly as silly as Rob insisting that a campaign treasurer’s office is not a good address to list for filings with the FEC.

    Reichart’s real campaign office is in his Washington D.C. Congressional office. That’s where he plans to raise most of his money – if he gets on the appropriations committee, that is. I bet trying to raise money from lobbyists as part of a minority party over the past year has been a real eye-opener for him. Reichart: “But I thought you liked me!” Lobbyist: “But what have you done for me lately?”

    But after he steps on a few toes to get on the appropriations committee, how much additional help will the RNC be willing to apportion to him in terms of real dollars? They might figure that at that point, they’ve already given him all the help he’s going to get. If he can’t make do with that, and with the other advantages of incumbency, they might simply cast him adrift and focus on saving others that have a real chance of being re-elected. “Sink or swim, Dave!”

    Remember that by the time an Congressman becomes a two-term incumbent, he (or she) is expected to start carrying the water for the party. At that point, they are expected to have a sufficiently solid base so that they can bring in money and support from their district to finance races in other districts, where the Republicans are fighting for an empty seat or are challenging a Democrat they perceive as being vulnerable. If, after two elections, a Congressman still is a drag on the rest of the party, then they might just cut him loose.

  91. 124

    Daddy Love spews:

    67 rob

    “she has her office where she gets her donations. Seattle.”

    No, she has an office that has filed papers with the FEC to be regarded for the purposes of campaign finance reporting as the principal campaign committee of the candidate, and that office REPORTS her donations. This is what we know.
    You, on the other hand, do not know what you asserted above. You actually have no idea where her donations are received.

  92. 125

    Daddy Love spews:

    Prediction: Dave Reichert will continue to lag behind Darcy in fundraising all this year.

    Prediction: Darcy Burner will continue to receive more contributions from individuals than Dave Reichert all this year.

  93. 126

    rhp6033 spews:

    While we are focusing on silly little things like where a campaign office is (or is not) located, let’s ask something more substantial:

    “Congressman Reichart, as a member of the Republican minority party in Congress, and as part of a party that (suddenly) thinks it is important to freeze (cut) domestic spending in order to deal wih the(suddenly important) budget deficit, perhaps you would like to explain how, and how much, federal money you can bring to your district for important transportation projects – such as rebuilding the 520 bridge?”

    (sounds of crickets chirping)….

    “Which scenario is more likely to bring more Federal money to Western Washington to re-build the 520 bridge:

    (a) Republicans winning (1) the Presidency, (2) control of Congress, and (3) Reichart retaining his seat, or…

    (b) Democrats winning (1) the Presidency, (2) retaining control of Congress, and (3) Reichart (a Republican) retaining his minority seat in Congress, or…

    (b) Democrats winning (1) the Presidency, (2)retaining control of Congress, and (3) a Democrat winning Reichart’s seat in Congress….????”

  94. 127

    Daddy Love spews:

    Rob DID succeed in making almost the entire discussion take place on his issues and no others.

    I think in politics that a good offense is a better tack than playing defense.

  95. 128

    rhp6033 spews:

    If Reichart keeps his seat in 2008, it might as well be an empty one, for all the good it will do his district. The Democrats are going to win the Presidency and capture a good number of the open seats in Congress. What were those more recent figures – twenty-eight open House seats that were formerly Republican, and only six open Democratic seats? And two of the open Democratic House seats were only because their occupants were running for the Senate?

    My prediction: Democrats retain all six open Democratic seats, and (by rough estimation) win half the open (formerly Republican) seats. I don’t see any Democratic incumbents being vulnerable in 2008, considering the Republicans are going to have to spend all their cash protection their already vulnerable incumbents. Thus we will have a net gain of at least 14 seats in the House – for a 246 to 185 majority in the House. Not quite the 290 votes needed to override a Presidential veto, but after 2008 that won’t be necessary.

    The real fight will be in the Senate. I haven’t done an analysis of that yet. But Remember that the Democrats are going to lose at least one seat due to the Presidential elections (Clinton or Obama will vacate the Senate seat to become President). If we have a Clinton-Obama or a Obama-Clinton ticket, then the Democrats will lose two seats. As much as I would like to see such a ticket (I can’t see it losing in November), the loss of another Senate seat might be too high a price to pay. As it is, relying upon Lieberman and a Senator recovering from a serious long-term illness to keep the majority position is a bit too much to count on beyond the next election. We need at least 53 reliable Democratic Senate seats as a cushion, and and 60 to get anything done (to avoid the Republican filibuster).

    (Personally, after the next election I think we ought to play hardball with the remaining Republicans in the Senate. Unlike the Republicans, we will let them have their say in committees and on the Senate floor, and in the conference committees. But if they try a filibuster, then we should promise (and deliver upon the promise) to throw unlimited funds to make sure they get the fight of their life in the next election.)

  96. 129

    rhp6033 spews:

    By the way, if Reichart serves five years in Congress, then he gets a lifetime pension, PLUS social security benefits, and health benefits. This is in addition to the pension and benefits he retains from his retirement as from the King County Sheriff’s office. Keeping Reichart from getting re-elected means that he only gets one dip into the public trough.

    Sure, it might not mean that much – I assume that health insurance or social security benefits won’t be any greater, or cost any more, than what he is getting from the Sheriff’s Dept. But the pension would be added on top of his existing pension. My real reason for thinking this is a problem is that since he whole-heartedly supported a President and a Party that didn’t think children should have access to medical care unless their parents could afford health insurance, and the President’s new budget seems to cut off even emergency room care for them), I don’t see any reason to let him get those extra (duplicative) benefits.

  97. 130

    rhp6033 spews:

    Reichart’s potential lifetime heath insurance from his House position reminded me of something, and got me to thinking.

    When I took my first professional job (after graduate school), it was for a small firm. The first thing the managing partner did was come to me, and explain that since I already had health insurance through my wife’s employer, wouldn’t I be a loyal member of the firm and help keep costs down by opting not to take health insurance from my employer? Being young and eager to be a “team player”, I agreed.

    But that is a supremely bad idea, as I told my kids, who are now also starting their professinal lives. If your employer pays for your coverage, you should take it, even if it means duplicative coverage.

    Now, it doesn’t mean you get any extra benefits when you are sick. The insurance policy provisions always say that in that instance, the insurance companies will split the cost between them. You don’t even get to have one company pay the deductable, co-insurance, or non-covered portions of the policies (with certain exceptions). They just divide the maximum they would have to pay if they were the only coverage, between themselves.

    So why be covered twice? Because you never can count on the future of your job. In the first twelve years of my career, my employers folded or went through ownership changes or reorganizations eight times. Through no fault of my own, I was therefore employed by eight different entities. My current employer has been steady (fourteen years), except that every three years the possiblity has been raised that the local office will be closed and operations transferred to the headquarters location.

    Each time you go to work for someone else, even if it is just a re-organization of your existing employer, you will probably end up with a new health plan, or even no health plan at all. At the very least, you may find yourself with a gap in coverage while you try to find private health insurance or get added to your spouse’s plan. When are you most likely to get seriously sick or in an accident? When you aren’t covered by insurance – it’s Murphy’s Law in effect. Even once you do avoid the bullet and purchase or get added onto your spouse’s coverage, you may find yourself dealing with exclusions for pre-existing conditions which negate coverage for months at a time – as much as a year, under some policies.

    At the worst, you may find yourself not covered at all by your employer, and unable to purchase private health insurance, at any price, due to that “mild heart attack” you suffered a few years back.

    So I would encourage all employees to take advantage of the health insurance offered by their employers AND their spouse’s employers, since you can’t predict the future. This is just exercising good sense, in looking out for yourself and the well-being of your family.

    But what makes good sense on a micro-economic level doesn’t make good sense on a larger scale. The biggest beneficiary of this policy is the insurance companies, who will receive duplicative insurance premiums, without having to pay out duplicative coverage. The losers will be the employers, who will be paying out for coverage which, most of the time, won’t benefit anybody.

    So the next time you hear arguments about how “inefficient” it would be to have a single-payor health care system in this country, and how “employment-related health insurance” is the best model, remember all the money that is wasted paying for duplicative insurance coverage for the spouses of employees.

  98. 131

    spews:

    Hey rhp6033, both Obama and Clinton represent solidly Democratic states with Democratic governors. No matter how each state’s laws define the process for replacing a resigned Senator, it would be with another Democrat.

    OTOH, I suspect you can cross Chris Dodd off your list of potential Vice Presidents. Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell is a Republican.

  99. 132

    Daddy Love spews:

    BTW, I totally do not see a Obama-Clinton ticket. I am thinking Obama-Richardson. It draws in Latinos, includes the Mountain West and West, and protects Obama against “experience” slams much as Cheney did for Idiot Boy.