Search Results for: Reichert

Washington’s remodeled 1st congressional district is getting pretty damn crowded with congressional candidates.

Today Democrat Susan DelBene announced her run for Congress. She joins a pack of Democrats, including Darcy Burner, Laura Ruderman, state Rep. Roger Goodman, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, and Darshan Rauniyar.

DelBene ran against Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) in 2010, narrowly losing. Burner has run for congress twice—2006 and 2008—narrowly losing to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) each time.

The Republicans in the race are John Koster and James Watkins. Koster ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA-02), losing in 2004 and narrowly losing in 2010. Watkins lost to Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) in 2010.

Sometime in the next week, Larry Ismael is expected to formally declare as an independent candidate. Ismael ran as a Republican against Inslee in 2006 and 2008, losing to Inslee by a 3 2:1 margin each time.

It is hard to tell who the front runner is at this point. The closest thing we have to a poll is from the Burner campaign. Late last year, they ran it in the proposed first district in order to test the waters:

The pollster did a favorable/unfavorable on the possible female candidates: former state legislator Laura Ruderman, the top fund raiser in the current field; Darcy Burner; and Suzan DelBene, the Democrat who challenged Reichert in 2008, who has also talked about getting in this time.

Then the poll did a horse race check for all candidates; others include state Reps. Roger Goodman and Marko Liias, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, and Bothell business entrepreneur (and surprise fundraiser) Darshan Rauniyar.

Then there was a horse race question between Burner and James Watkins, the Republican whose going for Inslee’s seat.

The pollster released a highly abbreviated summary of the results:

• Darcy Burner has an overwhelming lead over all other declared Democratic candidates in the proposed new WA-01. In the primary election among Democratic voters, Burner leads with 47% of the Democratic vote, greatly exceeding the 12% the next Democrat receives, and is +7 points higher than the 40% garnered by the entire rest of the field.
• Among all voters in the primary election, Burner also leads all other Democratic candidates by huge margins—27% support Burner while the next closest Democrat draws just 7% of the vote. In fact, Burner draws greater support than all other Democratic candidates COMBINED (27% for Burner vs. 22% for the six other Democratic candidates tested).

• Fully 50% of Democratic voters have a favorable impression of Burner, while just 11% have an unfavorable impression, with 39% unsure. Four out of five (82%) Democratic voters who have an opinion about Burner have a favorable impression of her.
• Burner’s overall name recognition (55%) is much stronger than that of Laura Ruderman (14%).

These results must be tempered by the fact that the new 1st may not look anything at all like the polled “proposed 1st.” Also, the information missing from the polling summary may be missing for a reason.

My feeling is that Burner really is the front-runner, but its almost entirely because of name recognition following two media-intensive campaigns in years when Democrats were tuning into elections. DelBene’s run was more recent, but in a year that didn’t excite Democrats. Name recognition alone won’t translate into a win.

Burner has something else going for her. Publicola points out that she leads other candidates in fundraising^*. DelBene can self-finance her campaign, but a dollar raised by a candidate is far more valuable than a dollar out of a candidate’s pocket, because it builds brand loyalty. Burner’s two month head start over DelBene may turn out to be important.

The Big Problem with so many Democrats (and some very good Democrats at that) in the race, is the possibility that two Republicans come out on top in our goofy top two primary system. With any luck, the field will start shrinking on the Democratic side, but not so much on the Republican and independent side….

^*As Daniel K points out, I misread the fundraising statement in Publicola.

Oops!

Last night I stumbled across Larry Ishmael’s YouTube announcement and campaign website for his bid for the open WA-01 congressional seat. Here is a little more information.

Larry was the Republican who challenged Rep. Jay Inslee (D) for WA-01 in 2006 and 2008. He lost both elections 32% to 68%. Should he seriously pursue the seat this year, his Republican competition^* will likely be James Watkins, Inslee’s challenger in 2010, and John Koster, who ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02) in 2004 and 2010.

From Larry’s blog we learn:

I really am enjoying this year in South Africa. […] My singular focus has been the dissertation, but I also have to remember that there is an election year coming up and I need to be positioned for that now. So, I spent Monday working on my “unofficial announcement” that I will be running for the 1st Congressional seat again in 2012. I ran in 2006 and 2008, but took 2010 0ff to concentrate on my Ph.D. work. Now, as my dissertation work is starting to shape up nicely, I hope to be Dr. Ishmael by the time the election rolls around next year.

After pondering potential opponents, Larry clarifies his campaign announcement:

Now that I have informally announced, I can run my Congressional Exploratory Campaign until I have raised the limit for “testing the waters,” and then I will officially declare and register with the FEC. There is much work to assemble a team between now and then, and that means I need to start that process right now even though I’m still in South Africa.

On the issues, Larry sounds like a typical “shrink government” Republican, but with a big emphasis on environmental sustainability—sort of like Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) but probably smarter and without all the “I’ve stared down the business end of a gun,” sheriffy bullshit.

Even so, from his Twitter feed we learn he is a anthropogenic climate change denier^&:

@Fun2BTan @ishmael1stcdwa Just so you know, I have scientific evidence of the fact that global warming is not man made.

— Larry W. Ishmael (@ishmael1stCDWA) December 1, 2011

And, predictably, he is anti-cap and trade:

Thank God that the Senate stopped Cap and Trade. The House is a bunch of sheep!

— Larry W. Ishmael (@ishmael1stCDWA) July 25, 2009

The good news for Larry is that, unlike 2006 when he lived in WA-08, his current residence is in WA-01. In fact, Larry’s condo is near the center of Redmond, a short walk from my own residence.

One other thing I noticed on his issues page:

As a member of the Creek Indian tribe, Larry respects the wisdom of his Native American fore-fathers…

I look forward to having Larry in the race. I mean, if we are going to have more than one Republican going into the top two primary, we might as well have lots of Republicans. And if the voters force a Republican on me as my next Representative, at least we should have someone who will add diversity to Congress and provide a congressional voice for Washington’s Native American community.

So welcome to the race Larry!

^* In the comment thread Larry points out he is running as an independent this time.
^& In the comment thread Larry clarifies his beliefs.

Darcy Burner gets her wish … and doesn’t.

Yes, her home is located in the 1st District. And yes, she’ll be in a no-incumbent CD. But no, it doesn’t much overlap with what had been Jay Inslee’s District. Most of it is what had been represented by Rick Larsen, who now has much of the former Inslee CD (and a safe Democratic seat).

I don’t know how most of the other 1st CD prospects made out.

Off the top of my head, I’d say that Marko Liias struck out … he’s almost surely in the new 2nd, and would have to face Larsen. I don’t know where in Snohomish Steve Hobbs lives. Suzan DelBene is now in the 9th District, with incumbent Adam Smith. The others — Goodman, Ruderman, and others — are still a mystery for me. [CORRECTIONS (12:51pm): If DelBene lives in Medina, she’s actually in WA-01, not WA-09. Roger Goodman is definitely in WA-01. It’s possible that Liias is now in WA-07, not WA-02 (either way, he’s SOL).]

Yes, majority-minority, but …

The redrawn 9th Congressional District is “only” 49.67% non-Hispanic white. However, it already has a well-entrenched incumbent in Adam Smith. And, as I noted yesterday, the voters of the CD will be majority non-Hispanic white.

In terms of cojones, Ceis and Gorton fought to a draw.

It really depends on the new 1st District. They built five Democratic Districts: 2nd (Larsen), 6th (Dicks), 7th (McDermott), 9th (Smith), 10th (Thurston County-based, no incumbent). There are three, maybe four, Republican CDs: the 4th (Hastings), 5th (McMorris Rodgers), and 8th (Reichert) are solid red, and the 3rd (Herrera Beutler) might, but probably doesn’t, have a whisper of a chance for a Democrat to squeeze her out. The new 1st will be the battleground. In a Presidential year, Democratic chances up there probably improve a bit.

More thoughts as I get a better chance to review the maps.

In Canada, Australia, India, Kenya, the UK, and the remainder of the 54 Commonwealth nations, today is Remembrance Day, a holiday honoring those who gave their lives for King (or Queen) and country while serving in the armed forces. As such, Remembrance Day is much more like our Memorial Day.

In my youth, this holiday was alternatively called Armistice Day. Officially, it became Veterans Day in 1954, but of course many adults kept calling it by its original name for years and years thereafter. The armistice referred to in the earlier title was the one that ended hostilities on the Western Front of the Great War. That occurred, famously, in Marshal Foch’s railway car, deep in France’s Forest of Compiègne. Though signed by representatives of Germany, France, and the Allies in the wee hours of that morning, the agreed-upon time for the laying-down of arms was “the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month”.

Today, on the 93rd anniversary of that armistice, on Veterans Day, we can go that timestamp one better, adding “of the 11th year”. Hence, my decision to publish this epistle at 11am on 11/11/11.

Over at Peace Tree Farm, I’ve written posts marking Veterans Day on almost every November 11 since 2003. Somehow, I missed it last year, breaking a seven-year streak. In case you’re interested, here are links to those essays:

• On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month (2003)
• Eleventh hour, eleventh day, eleventh month … again (2004)
• 11th, 11th, 11th … Veterans Day (2005)
• How will this war be memorialized? (2006)
• On Veterans Day (2007)
• A different sort of Veterans Day (2008)
• Lest we forget (2009)

I’m not a veteran myself. To be honest, only a few of my friends and family served in the military. I come from a long line of non-soldiers … had a student deferment during Vietnam and then a high enough number in the first draft lottery to avoid being called, my father was 4-F in World War II (he was deaf in one ear), and my maternal grandfather was a temporary New York City cop while many of the real policemen were marching “over there” in World War I. My father’s father did serve, if you consider playing the French horn in Czar Nicholas II’s army band to be military service.

But you don’t have to be a veteran to honor those who did serve. So here’s to Shaun Dale, whose blog Upper Left has been running almost as long as my own, and to Michael Hood of the well-respected BlatherWatch. Here’s to HA commenter-extraordinaire Roger Rabbit and to Robby, occasional HA commenter and erstwhile blogger on the late, lamented Effin’Unsound. And a salute to my Congressman Jim McDermott, one of only 90 House members with military service of any sort. Jim was a Navy psychiatrist treating sailors and soldiers with PTSD during the Vietnam War (to be fair, both of Washington’s Republican Congressmen, Dave Reichert and Doc Hastings, were reservists).

And, in fact, greetings and salutations in honor of all of the veterans hereabouts.

There were hints, and clues, and even outright claims, but now it’s official.

I mean, if you can believe hack journalist David “Goldy” Goldstein…Darcy Burner is running for Congress in Washington’s 1st congressional district.

For me that’s great news—I live in the 1st CD. Looking at the redistricting proposals, chances are excellent that Darcy Burner will be my next representative.

Darcy joins a somewhat crowded field of Democrats for the 1st CD, including State Rep. Roger Goodman, Former state Rep. Laura Ruderman, and State Rep. Marko Liias. I would be happy to be represented by any of these folks. (Okay…maybe not so much Ruderman, who seems to be great at fundraising, but what else? I simply don’t know.) Darcy, just by entering the race, becomes the front-runner.

This isn’t just my opinion. Remember the poll that Publicola got wind of (and that I mentioned here) a couple days ago? It shows Burner unquestionably in the lead.

If the redistricted 1st CD bears any resemblance to its old self, a Democratic candidate coming out of the primary will almost certainly win the general. Rep. Jay Inslee (who is vacating the seat to run for Governor) has held the district since 1999. The district has voted increasingly Democratic in recent presidential elections: Al Gore won by 53%, John Kerry won by 56%, and Barack Obama won by 62%.

On top of that, the Republicans have no candidates of any note running. Well…James Watkins, the guy who challenged Inslee in 2008, is running again.

I met Darcy during her first congressional run against Rep. Dave Reichert. I have interacted with her, perhaps, a dozen times since then, including doing one interview. My excitement at today’s announcement is genuine…I really want her to represent me! My reasons haven’t changed much from what I wrote back in 2006:

It was clear to me from that first meeting that Ms. Burner was an extraordinary individual—she struck me as smart, well-informed, articulate, disciplined, confident, and full of energy. I had no idea whether these attributes could translate into success in campaigning and politics, but I thought that Darcy exhibited many of the good attributes that I wanted in a political leader, and she didn’t seem afflicted with the negative attributes found in so many political leaders.

I couldn’t vote for Darcy in 2006 or 2008—my house is located a bit north of the 8th CD in the 1st CD. For the 2012 election cycle, I am most pleased to welcome Darcy to the 1st!

(You can contribute to Darcy Burner’s campaign here.)

It’s seems like an epidemic among Republicans these days. Earlier this week it was Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-WA-3). Today we have ourselves another cowardly Republican on full display.

This time it’s Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA-7) cowering at the thought of appearing before an un-screened crowd:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is abruptly pulling out of a scheduled Friday lecture on income equality at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School, according to the school.

[…] According to Cantor’s office, the Congressman pulled out after discovering that the speech would be open to the public and seeing reports that the university was allowing protestors to gather on the campus itself.

I cannot substantiate the rumor that instead of giving the speech, Cantor held a meeting with Herrera Beutler and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-8) to draft the bylaws of the G.O.P. Coward’s Club.

Freshman Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-WA-3) got a little attention today from the national press. And, um…it wasn’t exactly a profile in political courage.

The original story comes from The Columbian (my emphasis):

Who should be informed of the opportunity to meet with their elected officials? Who decides how that should happen? According to U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Camas, she does.
[…]

On Friday The Chronicle in Centralia received a phone call from Herrera Beutler staffer and Communications Director Casey Bowman informing the newspaper of the meeting. Bowman asked that a meeting announcement not be placed in the paper. However, he did invite the paper to cover the event.

The Chronicle refused his request and published an announcement in Saturday’s paper.

The reason for not publishing an advance notice of the meeting was the fear that people from outside the immediate area could come and “just yell” at the congresswoman “whatever’s on their minds,” Bowman said Friday.

Perhaps Herrera Beutler can get together with Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-8) and charter a G.O.P. Coward’s Club.

The Sierra Club has released their report card for Washington state’s congressional representatives:

• Jay Inslee (D-01), A+
• Rick Larsen (D-02), A
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-03), F
• Doc Hastings (R-04), F
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-05), F
• Norm Dicks (D-06), A+
• Jim McDermott (D-07), A+
• Dave Reichert (R-08), C
• Adam Smith (D-09), A+

Notice a pattern?

The best of the Republicans, Reichert, who was once taped confessing to pro-environmental votes as a way take environmentalists “out of the game”, only gets away with a C—and that’s based on his voting record.

The bottom line: Republicans are really, really bad for the environment.

Once again, the Tacoma News Tribune has achieved a level of stupidity that is both remarkable and depressing. And with Ken Burns’ fantastic series on alcohol prohibition airing this week on PBS, I should probably add inexcusable to that list as well.

The fun began over the weekend when TNT reporter Rob Carson filed a report about how he was able to get a medical marijuana authorization from a doctor he only saw over Skype. Anyone who’s familiar with the medical marijuana situation in the state knows that this kind of nonsense happens. At Seattle Hempfest, there were women with bikinis at the entrance encouraging people to “get legal” or to “get their green card”. Hell, we don’t even have “green cards” in this state.

Most people are smart enough to know that this will happen as long as there’s a way for people to make money from it. It’s no different from before medical marijuana was around, when there were thousands of people in this state willing to illegally sell pot to you for money. Now, along with those people, there are now people willing to provide you with a medical marijuana authorization for money. Not much of a difference other than the level of professional risk. These are merely the evolving ways that the futility of prohibiting a widely used recreation drug manifests itself.

As soon as I saw Carson’s report, I knew there was another Editorial Board disaster in the making. And they did not disappoint:

Restoring credibility to medical marijuana in Washington will require separating drug-seekers from the seriously ill people who may genuinely need it.

Anyone who cares about the latter should be anxious to prevent recreational users and abusers from discrediting the whole system – as is happening in Tacoma on a large scale.

The TNT seems awfully concerned about the credibility of medical marijuana, but they might need to be a little more worried about their own credibility. Hardly anyone disputes the fact that there are folks who derive genuine value from the medical use of marijuana. Even Dave Reichert has come to realize this after the reality of its effectiveness hit close to home. The fact that large numbers of recreational users come up with medical excuses doesn’t discredit that reality at all. But it does discredit the morons who can’t figure that out.

For the last two years, pot-lovers across the state have found it increasingly easy to get the so-called green cards that protect them from the law.

Wow, two big problems. There are no such thing as “green cards”. Anyone who’s told by a doctor that they are getting a “green card” is being scammed. This state does not have a registry system. What a doctor (or other licensed health professional) can give you is an authorization on special tamper-proof paper. And if a police officer finds your medical marijuana and he/she doesn’t think your authorization is valid? Well, he/she can still arrest your ass and see if the prosecutor will press charges. So not only are people not getting “green cards”, they don’t even have protection from the law. Of course, this fact makes the editorial even more completely pointless so it’s not surprising they’re not explaining it well.

Tacoma officials have accommodated them by tolerating a proliferation of illegal marijuana stores that now – according to licensing records – greatly outnumber the city’s pharmacies.

And according to a study by the RAND Corporation, it’s very possible that they lead to a reduction in crime in their immediate vicinity. So what’s the problem? Let’s get more of them!

That’s the visible end of the sham, but it’s not the headwater. Upstream, the industry is sustained by ever-growing numbers of common marijuana smokers who’ve discovered how easy it is get authorization papers on flimsy pretexts.

Who cares? Either those recreational smokers buy marijuana from someone who’s likely being supplied by organized crime, or they can buy it from a locally run dispensary who pays taxes and keeps the profits in the community. I know which option I prefer.

The News Tribune’s Rob Carson, for example, reported Sunday that, after walking into a Tacoma marijuana outlet, he was able to get medical authorization via the Internet from a nurse practitioner in another part of the state.

When the TNT finally goes tits up, I will pay top dollar for their fainting couch.

State law permits providers to authorize marijuana to treat debilitating or intractable pain that can’t be relieved by other treatments. Carson’s long-distance nurse quickly recommended marijuana for shoulder discomfort he normally handled with ibuprofen.

Sure, and if Carson got caught with marijuana and charged with possession, that authorization very likely wouldn’t hold up in court. Although if he were almost anywhere in King County, the prosecutor likely would have more important things to do than to charge him anyway. And if he were in Seattle, he wouldn’t even need the authorization.

The medical ethics of too many pot docs are a joke. Supposed professionals recommend marijuana to the vast majority of “patients” they see, and they offer their customers their money back if they don’t walk away with a license to use. It’s all about the cash.

Wow, how’d you unravel that mystery?! Boy, your investigative skills are top-notch.

Judge John Hickman of the Pierce County Superior Court has lost patience with the charade. He has refused to return confiscated “medical marijuana” to two Tacomans unless they demonstrate that their authorizations actually comply with state law.

Um, I believe they were providers, so even if their own authorizations don’t hold up, they only have to prove that they were providing for a valid patient.

These two aren’t the issue; they may well be in compliance. What’s important is that somebody – at last – is insisting that authorizations pass muster with someone other than a marijuana merchant.

That’s been the law, numbnuts. Look up State v. Fry.

Somebody – preferably, responsible medical professionals – should be scrutinizing the authorizers on a routine basis.

They already do, and few people get upset about it. In fact, a doctor who writes medical marijuana authorizations was one of the main people providing input for how the new law passed this year should prevent scammers.

Marijuana advocates talk about moving the drug from Schedule I to Schedule II, which would allow doctors to legally prescribe it.

That may not be a bad idea. But the prescribing of Schedule II drugs, such as Percocet and amphetamines, is monitored by professional oversight bodies and ultimately by pharmacists. Doctors get sanctioned if they get too prescription-happy.

Actually most marijuana advocates think it should be lower that Schedule II (which is where cocaine and methamphetamine are listed), but the general sentiment is true. If a doctor thinks that you could benefit from medical marijuana, you should be able to obtain it from a safe place where the safety of the drug is most assured. And every medical marijuana supporter I’ve ever known wants more research done to find out exactly what the plant does and how it’s most effective. Up until now, it’s mostly anecdotal and that’s far from ideal.

Sorry this is long, but for an editorial this clueless, it requires a full line-by-line takedown. Here’s the utterly obnoxious end:

Medical marijuana advocates who are out to help the genuinely sick – not furtively legalize the drug for all comers – wouldn’t object to tighter regulations of their own. Would they?

Sorry, but I’m here to both help the genuinely sick AND legalize the drug for all (adult) comers. I mentioned this week’s PBS documentary on alcohol prohibition for a reason, and it’s because the parallels are all too obvious.

During alcohol prohibition, there was a medical exemption for alcohol. If you could get a doctor to write you a prescription for whiskey, you were able to buy “medicinal” booze through legal channels. There was also a religious exemption. This led to a lot of priests and rabbis getting rich supplying people’s “spiritual activities”. All of this was cynical and all of it was driven by greed. But the answer to that problem wasn’t to crack down on the cynical ways people were able to exploit the law to get rich. The answer was to recognize that trying to stamp out a widely popular recreational drug is impossible, and that it was much smarter to make it legal and regulate its sale to all adults. The answer for marijuana is the same, and this should be obvious to anyone with both a brain and a minimal knowledge of history. But it appears that the folks at the Tacoma News-Tribune editorial board still have neither.

A couple of months ago, State Auditor Brian Sonntag made the “difficult” decision to not jump into the gubernatorial race. At the time I wrote:

Sonntag is nominally a Democrat, with a track record that includes things like endorsing Republican King County Executive candidate Susan Hutchison, snuggling spooning blowing Tim Eyman, and participating in Teabagger events.

We can only hope that the buzz about a potential Sonntag gubernatorial bid has encouraged some talented people to think about running for the open Auditor seat. And with any luck, they’ll still run, but now against Sonntag. Otherwise, I’m afraid, Sonntag will maintain his grip on the State Auditor’s office…well, until it’s pried out of his cold, dead hands.

Sonntag remains amongst the living. But, apparently, he came up short on a self-performance audit. Today he announced his intention to retire from the position, leaving another statewide open seat—the fourth.

So let’s all follow Dwight Pelz’s lead and thank Brian and wish him well:

“Brian Sonntag’s 35 year record of public service goes nearly unmatched in Washington State. He has been a true state leader, an advocate for the people of Washington, and an independent voice in the Democratic Party. On his retirement from the auditor’s office, we wish him our heartfelt thanks and congratulations.”

I have no idea who will run for the open position. Perhaps Susan DelBene? DelBene has an MBA from the University of Washington. The former tech-sector CEO and Microsoft corporate VP ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Dave Reichert in 2010. She is currently director for the Washington State Department of Revenue. DelBene’s resume looks quite good for the position.

Republicans just don’t bother to put up candidates for the position anymore.

[S]tate GOP spokesman Josh Amato said Monday: “We liked what Brian was doing. We weren’t working on taking him out of office.”

With the office open, however, Republicans expect to have qualified candidates willing to run, Amato said.

Here’s an idea that will add some zest to the race: Republicans should draft Tim “Biggest Lie of My Life” Eyman. Tim should grow the fuck up and compete for a real job. He can then stop his continuous begging for (and occasional theft of) money from his supporters. And he can give up his whoring ways, “servicing” rich donors like Michael Dunmire and Kemper Freeman, Jr. Eyman can go all respectable on us.

On the other hand…maybe Republicans can repeat their 2004 strategy: putting Will Baker on the ballot for State Auditor.

Jaime Herrera Beutler appears to be learning a lot in Congress. In particular, she’s learning how to avoid interacting with the people she represents. I’m guessing Dave Reichert is her mentor.

– I did not mean to imply that Bachmann might have been anything other than awful for the country thus far.

– Time to Play on Rainier Ave.

– This pastry prevents Rick Perry from explaining why he thinks Social Security is unconstitutional.

– The Civil War Isn’t Tragic.

– Dave Reichert’s unemployment line.

The Republicans are still trying to find a credible opponent for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in 2012. Former Bush Deputy White House spokesperson and Bush-Cheney ‘04 Press Secretary, Scott Stanzel is considering it.

But I said “credible.”

And now Seattle Weekly‘s Mike Seely writes:

…lately we’ve been hearing somewhat credible rumors that 8th District Congressman Dave Reichert might be up for abandoning his seat and challenging Cantwell. So is this chatter serious, or is there a stealthier factor at play here?

By “stealthier factor” he means that Reichert is using such rumors to leverage a more favorable redistricting outcome.

Seely ponders:

But what if Reichert’s motives are more pure? What would ensue would be a fascinating race between polar opposites: Cantwell, the wonkish brainiac who takes on issues of substance yet struggles with retail politics and staff retention, versus Reichert, the dull knife who gets by on Ken-doll looks, law-enforcement legend, and timely tacks to the center.

That would be fun! I like it. Reichert is, for sure, a stronger opponent for Cantwell than is Stanzel. But a Reichert challenge would accomplish two things. First, it opens up the Democratic-leaning 8th CD (which, of course, may be unrecognizable by 2012). Second, it means Republicans would dump lots of money into the race. Less so with Stanzel; Republicans would find more promising races upon which to spend their spoils.

This is Reichert’s big Window of Opportunity…but could he win?

In a statewide competition against an uberwonk, Reichert would not get away with his usual strategy of dodging all things substantive. He’ll have to speak in public and try to come off as intelligent and informed. No more “I’ve looked in a microscope and seen the heartbeat of a stem cell” moments; no more, “I don’t know enough about this issue, so I’ll pass on the question” answers like he gave in his 2006 debate against Darcy Burner. No more confessions of voting the way the leadership tells him to vote. The Cantwell campaign would eat him alive for such blunders.

So, no, he can’t. If Reichert sticks his head through that Window of Opportunity…he’ll get his freakin’ throat slit….

Will the Republicans come up with a credible challenger to Sen. Maria Cantwell for 2012? The topic came up at Drinking Liberally last week, and I’ve been been thinking about it on and off since then. Specifically…who?

Jim Brunner puts together a good analysis. At this point, the big challenge for any potential Republican is money. The clock is running. Cantwell is raising money. Her non-existent Republican opponent isn’t.

Former Washington state Republican Chairman Chris Vance has the political side figured out. (I like how he is able to say reality-based stuff that current Chairman Kirby Wilbur could never say):

“[R]ight now, it’s very much in doubt whether there is going to be a strong candidate.”

“The Republican brand got hammered on the West Coast during the Bush years, and it has not recovered….There are just so many more Democrats than Republicans in Washington state right now — the math just becomes very difficult.”

and

“If a Republican is going to have any chance to beat Cantwell, they have to immediately and sharply distance themselves from the national Republican Party”

Brunner offers three possible challengers: Susan Hutchison, who lost a race for King County Executive to Ron Sims Dow Constantine in 2009, Rep. Dave Reichert, and Port of Seattle Commissioner Bill Bryant.

Not impressive.

Dino! Your party needs you!

I’m trying to get my head wrapped around this one. Obama claims that providing financing and logistic support to NATO, without a committment of armed forces, does not amount to making war on Libya and therefore is not covered by the War Powers Act of 1973.

Most Republicans (and some Democrats) think otherwise. They would call it war, and hence, claim that Obama is, as of Sunday, in violation of the War Powers Act.

Today there was a House vote to authorize limited military involvement in Libya. It failed 123 (yes) to 295 (no).

Washington’s delegation split along partisan lines with Democrats Dicks, Smith, McDermott, Inslee, and Larsen voting yes and Republicans Herrera Beutler, Reichert, Hastings and McMorris Rodgers voting no.

Huh…I distinctly remember George W. Bush suggesting that John Kerry’s criticisms against Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and endangering the troops.

So…if Obama is right in his interpretation of the War Powers Act, then the Republicans have engaged in little more than toothless political theater by defeating an unnecessary “authorization” today.

But if the Republicans are right in their belief that Obama is waging war in Libya in violation of the War Powers Act, then doesn’t their vote against authorizing the action mean, by their own standards, that they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Yo Reps. Herrera Beutler, Reichert, Hastings and McMorris Rodgers did y’all just give Gaddafi a big ol’ group hug? And why are you willfully endangering the troops?