Search Results for: Reichert

My trolls like to disparage me as a Darcy Burner fanboy, but I’m much more pragmatic than most folks imagine, for while other local bloggers had quickly lined up behind Darcy by the early fall of 2005, I insisted on waiting until after I saw who else might jump into the race.

In fact, I didn’t merely wait, but rather proactively reached out to then Republican state Rep. Fred Jarrett, urging him to challenge incumbent Dave Reichert… as a Democrat. And Fred’s thoughtful response not only deepened my respect for him, but ultimately convinced me that Darcy’s relative youth was an asset, not a liability:

I’m honored you’d make such a suggestion.  Thanks.  The truth is that I’m too old to run for Congress.  It would be a waste of the state’s time.  We need someone at the oldest in their early 40s (early-to-mid-30s would be best) to be Norm Dicks’ replacement.  Notice what his seniority has done for the state, or better still, look at how the South has been able to dominate national legislative policy through their “seniority strategy.”  All of Robert Caro’s books on LBJ demonstrate this in spades.

I hope that Fred doesn’t mind me publishing our private correspondence these years later, but his words of advice came back to me on news of Rep. David Obey’s retirement, and the likely elevation of Washington’s own Rep. Norm Dicks to the chairmanship of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

Like it or not, a substantial segment of our state’s economy has long been dependent on our national military-industrial complex. Turn up your nose at such “pork barrel politics,” but that Air Force tanker contract for example, it’s gonna create jobs — either here in blue Washington, or to a lesser extent in red Alabama — and whatever the technical merits of Boeing’s bid, our aerospace workers would be at a severe competitive disadvantage without a powerful congressional delegation to back them up.

Likewise Washington is constantly competing with other states for billions of dollars of federal grants for education, health care, transportation, and other critical services and infrastructure projects. Again, it’d be nice to be more high-minded about it, but that wouldn’t get us very far in such an adversarial appropriations process.

So while Dicks might not be my favorite member of our state’s House delegation, he’s by far its most powerful, and thus we all have a selfish stake in his ascension to the Appropriations chair, and in assuring that Democrats maintain control of Congress. That’s something voters in WA-03 might want to consider as they fill the open seat down in that swing district; if Democrats lose control of the House, Dicks will lose much of his ability to help his colleagues bring home the bacon. And we all love bacon.

The same, by the way, holds true for Sen. Patty Murray. As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the chair of its subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Murray has played a key role in securing federal dollars for vital local projects. Billions of dollars for Hanford cleanup? Thank Sen. Murray. $813 million to finish the Link Light Rail tunnel from Westlake to the UW? Sen. Murray has been Sound Transit’s “chief patron.” The federal dollars needed to fix the failing Howard Hanson dam? It’s Sen. Murray who is leading the charge in the other Washington.

It takes years to build up that kind of seniority and power. Decades. Sen. Murray is one of the most powerful Democrats in the U.S. Senate. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that she could even be Majority Leader come January, 2011. So lose Sen. Murray and Washington state stands to lose billions of dollars in desperately needed federal money. That’s just the way the system works.

And that’s why, for example, I expect the Seattle Times to endorse Sen. Murray this November, regardless of her opponent. And I’ve proven pretty uncanny in predicting Seattle Times endorsements.

Yeah, sure, the economy sucks, and it’s always cathartic to send politicians a message. But Washington state simply does not have that luxury when it comes to senior congressional leaders like Rep. Dicks and Sen. Murray, and the Democratic majority that grants them their power. Thus wherever you stand ideologically, it is hard to argue that a Republican wave this November would be in the interest of Washington state.

No, really… this is an editorial from the Seattle Times:

LISTENING to Republican senators mouth scripted lines opposing financial regulatory reforms is to hear them auditioning for jobs as industry lobbyists after Congress.

… [Senate Republican leader Mitch] McConnell and his colleagues do not offer any suggestions or ideas about how to rein in the most reckless — and lucrative — behavior by commercial and investment banks.

Nor do Republicans offer any leadership in providing American consumers and investors with trustworthy, accessible information about investment products, and their hazards to the treasury. How or why the GOP would oppose such elementary transparency must puzzle voters.

Huh. And on a similar note, how or why the Times would consistently endorse such Republicans must puzzle its readers.

The unsigned editorial goes on to laud U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell for her leadership on this issue, a Democrat whose candidacy the Times has twice opposed despite the fact that during the run up to her 2006 reelection the editorial board agreed with Cantwell on nearly every single issue except her opposition to repealing the estate tax.

Does anyone believe that had Times-endorsed, insurance industry executive Mike McGavick won the 2006 campaign, he’d cast anything but a party-line vote against financial regulatory reform, let alone provide the kind of effective legislative leadership we’ve seen from Cantwell? I don’t think so.

The Times’ endorsements have proven incredibly predictable in recent years, even the Democratic bones they toss readers in an effort to maintain a semblance of nonpartisanship. (This cycle it will be Patty Murray, even if Dino Rossi enters the race. Mark my words.) So if they’re going to complain about “Republicans missing in action,” shouldn’t they be focusing on Western Washington’s only congressional Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert, who recently voted against financial regulatory reform along with every single other House Republican?

No doubt when they endorse him again next October, the Times will praise Reichert for his moderation and bipartisanship — you know, his “conscience-driven independence” — but apart from some environmental issues, and that one vote on Terri Schiavo, when has he ever bucked his party leadership when it really mattered?

The Times implies that Republican opposition to financial regulatory reform stems from greed — the lure of an eventual windfall as a Wall Street lobbyist — and who am I to dispute such a cynical assertion? But given the bigger picture, one in which House and Senate Republicans vote as a unified block against nearly everything President Obama proposes or supports, one can only understand their uncompromising obstructionism as part of an even more cynical political strategy.

So the question is, at what point will Republican boosters like the Times editorial board hold the candidates they endorse responsible for the votes they cast? At what point, instead of simply castigating Republicans in general, will the Times call out Republican Reichert for his own lockstep politics and lack of leadership?

Personally, I’m not holding my breath.

Gee… look at the company Dave Reichert keeps.

Curious to meet Democratic congressional challenger Suzan DelBene? Well, she’ll be at the Newport Hills chapter of Drinking Liberally tonight at the Mustard Seed, 7:00 PM, 5608 119th Ave. SE.

As for the incumbent Dave Reichert, I don’t believe he’s invincible, and I don’t believe we’re on the verge of a big red wave. An anti-incumbent wave, maybe. But not overtly anti-Democratic, at least not around these parts. And I honestly don’t believe Reichert’s no vote on HCR will help him in November.

As McJoan points out over on Daily Kos, much of the conventional wisdom about U.S. Senator Patty Murray’s presumed vulnerability has been driven by Republican pollsters, but according to the latest Research 2000 poll, not so much:

What R2K found? Patty Murray is the most popular Democrat in the state, with (contra Rasmussen) a 52 percent approval, and a 51 percent approval among all-important Independents. Only Obama is more popular with Washingtonians.

What’s more, she handily beats the leading conventional-wisdom contenders Rossi and Rep. Dave Reichert (WA-08).

Patty Murray (D)   52
Dino Rossi (R)     41

Patty Murray (D)   51
Dave Reichert (R)  43

While Republican pollsters and consultants have made an awful lot of money over the past 18 years underestimating Murray, Republican challengers haven’t done nearly so well, with the diminutive Democrat ending the the political careers of three sitting Republican congress-critters in a row. I suppose Dino Rossi or Dave Reichert might be dumb/arrogant enough to take a shot at Murray and hope for a Big Red Wave, but if I were them I’d wait to see a little more post-health-care-vote polling before counting on a right-wing surge to sweep them into the Senate.

Though as a liberal blogger, I gotta admit that a Rossi, Reichert or Susan Hutchison candidacy would make for an awful lot of fodder and fun.

Representatives Dave Reichert and Jay Inslee both spoke briefly on the floor of the House during yesterday’s health care reform debate; not surprisingly, Reichert spoke out in opposition to the bill, while Inslee spoke in its support.

But it was interesting to see both Republican Reichert and Democrat Inslee make freedom of choice a lynchpin of their divergent arguments:

Putting aside the obvious irony of Reichert making a pro-choice appeal, the fact that opposing sides could make the same basic argument in service of competing causes, shows just how muddled, confusing and hopeless this debate really is. If Democrats and Republicans can’t even agree on the meaning of the word “choice,” how can they possibly agree on something as complex as health care reform?

Of course, they can’t, which is why the mythical beast known as bipartisanship was never going to rear its head in this debate.

For the past few years Democrats campaigned vigorously on health care reform, and the American people rewarded them with control of both Congress and the White House. As a result, the American people were going to get a Democratic health care plan if they were going to get anything at all, whether the Republicans chose to constructively participate in the process or not.

The Republicans lost this debate not yesterday, not last week or last month, or even during the long year in which this bill has made its torturous way through Congress. No, the Republicans lost this debate in 2006 and 2008, when voters resoundingly decided to place their confidence in Democrats, not Republicans, to solve our nation’s most pressing problems.

These are the voters to whom Congress fulfilled a promise yesterday, and if voters in 2010 and 2012 aren’t happy about it, they will be free to toss the Democrats out. And that is a definition of “choice” on which I hope both sides can agree.

Writing on the Washington State Insurance Commissioner’s official blog, Rich Roesler explains what yesterday’s passage of federal health care reform means for us here in Washington state:

The health care reform bill passed by the U.S. House Sunday will cut the number of uninsured in Washington state by more than 500,000, provide better coverage to those with insurance, and save $500 million in uncompensated care – health care that’s delivered in Washington state but not directly paid for.

Which makes it hard to explain why Republicans Dave Reichert, Doc Hasting and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers would vote against it. Unless, of course, their votes were purely ideological and/or political.

They’ve never been anything more than an angry mob:

Tea partiers and other anti-health care activists are known to get rowdy, but today’s protest on Capitol Hill–the day before the House is set to vote on historic health care legislation–went beyond the usual chanting and controversial signs, and veered into ugly bigotry and intimidation.

Civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and fellow Congressional Black Caucus member Andre Carson (D-IN) related a particularly jarring encounter with a large crowd of protesters screaming “kill the bill”… and punctuating their chants with the word “nigger.”

[…] And that wasn’t an isolated incident. Early this afternoon, standing outside a Democratic whip meeting in the Longworth House office building, I watched Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) make his way out the door, en route to the neighboring Rayburn building. As he rounded the corner toward the exit, wading through a huge crowd of tea partiers and other health care protesters, an elderly white man screamed “Barney, you faggot”–a line that caused dozens of his confederates to erupt in laughter.

After that incident, Capitol police threatened to expel the protesters from the building, but were outnumbered and quickly overwhelmed.

Makes you proud to be an American, huh?

Of course, bullies are also cowards, and outside of the security of their own mob, I don’t really believe that most tea baggers have the balls to act on their convictions, let alone their threats (The traitor Dave Reichert votes for cap and trade, yet faces no Tea Party challenger… what’s up with that?), but as I’ve written before, there are crazies out there, and violent rhetoric breeds violent actions. So if health care reform does pass, and right-wing violence does break out, I hope responsible political leaders have the guts to brand them as the terrorists they really are.

The Seattle Times and the national press need to stop with the endless health care articles about WA-08. Sure, it’s a swing district, and yes, the incumbent, Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., is searching his soul over health care reform. And if he votes “not moderate” he will risk losing, because the 8th is nothing but moderate. I mean, it was The Seattle Times who insisted that only Dave is “moderate” enough to represent those fine folks.

The thousands of phone calls from around the country, the audience in the Oval, the casual debates late at night with colleagues. I mean, we GET IT. The 8th is a swing district, we know, and moderates like Reichert have to weigh these decisions carefully! The citizens are likely closely divided, as in other key swing districts, but that’s why we have elections, so that when the tough issues get decided, legislators must vote on behalf of their constituents, and not just a party line. It would be terrible if that were not the case.

But enough! He’s only human!

Really, I can’t take all the attention this key swing district is receiving.

I just received an email from Sen. Robert Byrd, the longest serving Senator in U.S. history.

Of course, a lot of other folks around here received the same exact email. It was a fundraising pitch on behalf of Sen. Patty Murray, sent from a Murray campaign email account. Nothing remarkable about that.

But from all accounts, the affection and respect for Murray expressed in Byrd’s email is genuine, and provides a sharp contrast to the caricature of Murray with which Washington Republicans like to comfort themselves every six years.

Back in 2004 I described her last reelection contest as a race between the physically diminutive Patty Murray versus the politically diminutive George Nethercutt, who she unsurprisingly defeated by a 12-point margin. So how has Murray consistently produced such wide margins against highly touted Republican opponents?

Quite simply, Murray is one of the best retail politicians I’ve ever met. Spend a few moments with her and it becomes clear that she actually likes people, and unlike Sen. Maria Cantwell (who has different virtues), clearly enjoys talking with complete strangers. Be it one-on-one, in small groups, speaking before a large room, or even in her TV commercials, this everywomanish aspect of Murray’s personality comes through, making it exceedingly difficult for Republicans to succeed with their usual line of negative attacks.

Ironically, this inherent likability makes it easier for Murray to go on the attack herself, as she did early, often and quite effectively against Nethercutt. Don’t let her size and mannerisms fool you; you don’t get to rise to such a high level of power and influence in a men’s club like the U.S. Senate without sporting some awfully big cojones, metaphorical as they may be, and Murray’s not afraid to swing ’em. Nethercutt entered the 2004 race with a reputation as a giant-killer, but the five foot tall Murray immediately kneecapped him, and he never recovered.

Perhaps this explains why Murray has yet to draw a big name opponent for 2010. After ending the political careers of three sitting Republican Congress-critters in a row, neither Cathy McMorris-Rogers, Dave Reichert nor Doc Hastings are eager to have Murray make them the fourth. And state Attorney General Rob McKenna—without a doubt the most skilled politician on the WSRP bench—is too smart to deliberately seek out a bump in the road on what he hopes to be a smooth ride to the governor’s mansion and beyond. As for Dino Rossi, he just got his ass kicked by an unpopular governor, and besides… you gotta want it to run for it.

That only leaves the traditional GOP fallback candidate: the generic, rich, white guy. And that didn’t turn out so well for Mike McGavick running against a much more vulnerable Cantwell in 2006, now did it?

Right now, with Murray out-raising her best funded no-name Republican opponent by over 227 to 1, and the election only ten months away, it looks like the state GOP has given up on taking out the Democrat they like to laugh off as America’s dumbest senator. Well, um, what does that say about them?

I’ve been meaning to comment on David Brewster’s post-election analysis over at Crosscut — “A bad election for moderates” — but I just can’t work up the energy necessary to read it through a second time. So rather than a thorough, line-by-line fisking, I’d mostly just like to focus on the first few paragraphs.

I wish this change-election had gone further, empowering another new force: the independent center. Roping in disaffected independents is critical to resolving some of the big issues. But in most cases, the new faces from the vital center had trouble, and the electorate (and media) reverted to partisanship. What went wrong?

Start with Susan Hutchison, who bombed in her run for county executive against Dow Constantine, losing 59-41.

I’m not sure I buy Brewster’s notion that most independents are necessarily disaffected, or even that they are critical to resolving big issues, and I certainly don’t accept the existence of a partisan “electorate (and media)” as evidence that anything “went wrong.” And with Mike McGinn in the mayor’s office, and two newcomers on the city council, I don’t particularly “wish this change-election had gone further,” assuming that’s even what it was.

But the words “centrist,” “independent,” and “vital center” used in close association with the name Susan Hutchison? I mean… what the fuck?

Yeah, sure, Brewster goes on to criticize Hutchison for failing the “candor test,” but more from a strategery perspective than an ethical one.

I think her basic mistake was to rely on Dino Rossi’s aw-shucks strategy of brushing off all questions about divisive social issues, such as abortion (not a local issue, etc.) and her obvious-to-all past Republican leanings. Everyone knows, when you dodge issues like that, that you are probably on the conservative side, the less popular side, of the ledger, so nobody is really fooled.

“Probably on the conservative side”…? “Republican leanings“…? Hey David… could you throw in a few more caveats?

I thought the thesis of Brewster’s post was that this was “a bad election for moderates,” so how exactly is Hutchison’s failure to fool voters into thinking she is one, bad for Brewster’s mythical centrist voter?

But the stonewalling candidate looks inauthentic, untrustworthy, devious.

Hutchison didn’t just look inauthentic, untrustworthy and devious, she was inauthentic, untrustworthy and devious. That’s an important distinction.

It keeps the credibility issue alive in the media, enabling Constantine to win simply by charging that Hutchison was (gasp!) a Republican once.

“A Republican once“…? Yeah, like right up until the minute before she filed for a titularly nonpartisan office.

What kept the credibility issue alive in the media was Hutchison’s stunning lack of credibility. And by the way, what exactly is wrong with Constantine (gasp!) educating voters about Hutchison’s obvious-to-all Republican affiliation? Aren’t voters better served by being more informed, rather than less?

To get the independents’ vote, you have to level with them, avoid political evasions, be your authentic self.

Except, you know, when your authentic self is a far-right-wing, intelligent-design-promoting, climate-change-denying, in-bed-with-the-BIAW, ideologically rigid conservative Republican.

(Query: Can anchorpersons actually retain an authentic self after years on the banquet circuit and on the tube?)

Answer: Yes. And perhaps that helps explain why an aging Jean Enersen still has an anchor job while an aging Susan Hutchison doesn’t.

Too, Hutchison’s past, from what I can tell talking with people who knew her in unguarded moments in recent years, was quite conservative.

Again with the caveats.

She probably wasn’t going to be able to come off as a new version of Jennifer Dunn, the popular Eastside Republican congresswoman with many decidedly moderate views on education and the environment.

Jennifer Dunn wouldn’t be able to come off today as the kind of moderate Republican Brewster wistfully imagines her to be.

Not a good choice if the GOP really wants to capture the independents and the center.

“Capture” the center? And what… hold them hostage? Ship ’em off to Gitmo? Water-board them into voting Republican? Strikes me as an odd but apt turn of phrase, considering Brewster’s analysis thus far.

I agree that Hutchison was not a good choice if the GOP wants to appeal to independents and the center, but rather than attempting to capture these voters through lies and deceit, perhaps Republicans should attempt to remake their party by running and endorsing moderate, independent-minded candidates?

You can’t wish your past away, and if you don’t put those values out there, saying you’ve changed in some regards and want to build on some other beliefs you consider core, you just look false and unprepared.

Um… but what if, like Hutchison, you haven’t magically “changed in some regards” simply because the office you’re running for has recently been made officially nonpartisan? What if, like Hutchison, you are false and unprepared?

(Congressman Dave Reichert, for instance, hardly denies that he once was a sheriff.)

Huh? I think that parenthetical line is supposed to be a joke. Either that, or a sign of early onset Alzheimer’s.

The Democrats had only to warn that the “real” Hutchison (fill in the blank with whatever fears you may have) would emerge after the election. Who wants to chance that, particularly with someone so totally inexperienced?

Who would want to chance that? At last count, only 40.68% of King County voters… about the same percent that supported David Irons, a man whose mother accused him of beating her.

Which raises the question: how exactly does Brewster define the word “centrist?”

Is Brewster referring to the ideological center, a somewhat vague and fluid fulcrum between left and right, liberal and conservative, that tends to wander slightly over time? Or does he mean the electoral center, a still vague, but somewhat more quantifiable space that, in a given election, in a given jurisdiction, is large enough to hold at least a bare majority of voters?

By either definition I suppose Hutchison could accurately be described as a centrist… in, say, Lewis County, or in Alabama. But here in King County? Not so much.

Indeed in King County, it’s Dow Constantine who is the centrist, as evidenced by his ability to capture nearly 60% of the vote in a hotly contested race.

So who was this election really bad for? Not moderates. Not centrists. Not independents. It was bad for Republicans.

No doubt Brewster longs for some sort of Republican revival, whatever the label, if only to keep the local Democratic majority in check. Hell, I’m no fan of one-party rule either, and I too fear that without viable challengers from without or within, the Democratic leadership will grow fat, lazy and ineffective. But not having lived through the Dan Evans era, my political judgement isn’t clouded by a nostalgia that fails to differentiate between, say, the Bruce Chapman of then and the Bruce Chapman of today.

I’d argue that the center is alive and well in King County politics, and firmly in control of the reins of power. Both Ross Hunter and Fred Jarrett, who Brewster lauds as “highly regarded suburban moderates” would have been Republicans twenty years ago… in fact, just two years ago, Jarrett was. Now Jarrett has become the number two man in King County government, while Hunter will continue to control the House Finance Committee, from which he can effectively block the progressive tax structure reforms the more liberal wing of his caucus is quietly clamoring for. Indeed, as evidenced by their acquiescence on last session’s all-cuts budget, even the supposedly liberal Seattle legislative delegation reliably votes well to the ideological right of their constituents.

If anything, we don’t need any further checks on Seattle liberals, we need them to get up off their collective ass and deliver the economic justice and tax fairness they’ve been promising for decades. Or at least, get off their ass and try to deliver it. Trying would be a good first step.

As for Republicans, it’s not a rigidly partisan Democratic electorate that is denying them victory, even in so-called “nonpartisan” races, but rather the GOP’s own pathological slide to the far right. Had Hutchison won, based on name ID, smiles and lies, it would have done nothing to improve the GOP’s long term prospects, and nothing to serve the interests of the moderates who Brewster implies shared in Hutchison’s loss. Any Republican victory based on strategy alone will only delay the reformation the GOP needs to embrace in order to bring their party closer in line with the values of the majority of King County voters.

So if Brewster really wants to see local Republicans come back to a point of political relevance, my suggestion is that he stop coddling them. It’s not their strategy that is at fault. It’s not their lack of candor. It’s their extremist views.

And I just don’t see how the electoral loss of an extremist like Hutchison supports the thesis that this was a bad election for moderates.

HA contributors were unusually busy over the weekend, a typically slow time of the week when both posting and traffic generally dips, so here’s a brief summary of the posts you might have missed.

Even business guys befuddled about Baird’s vote
Spiraling healthcare costs is the number one issue for small businesses here and nationwide, which according to Jon, has even U.S. Rep. Brian Baird’s constituents in the business community puzzled over his vote against healthcare reform.

Post-Election Analysis Heresy
In which I make the downright heretical suggestion that, campaign strategery aside, perhaps the results of our recent election indicate that local voters are for the most part satisfied with the performance of our local government, and think both King County and Seattle are headed in the right direction.

The Great Mystery of Afghanistan in 2005-2006
Rather than a long, slow decline into chaos, the situation on the ground in Afghanistan didn’t start to take a sharp turn for the worse until 2005-2006. What changed at that time? Not surprisingly, Lee focuses in on our futilely misguided War on Drugs.

Packing Irony
Wouldn’t it be ironic, I mused, if the guy packing a pistol into the West Seattle Community Center had been shot in the process by another gun-toting civilian? (Because guns make us safer, you know.)

Another Domino Falls
Lee reports that even the stodgy, old American Medical Association has adopted recommendations encouraging the Federal government to reclassify marijuana away from being a Schedule I drug.

Grandstanding Reichert really shows them
Jon reports on U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert’s expanding war on old people, and the congressman’s failed efforts to have the AARP regulated as an insurance company in retribution for their endorsement of healthcare reform.

Times ed board outsources ideas to South Carolina
The anti-union/pro-Republican editors at the Seattle Times absurdly advise organized labor as to what’s good for workers and the general welfare of the Democratic Party. I, of course, make fun of the Times in response.

Bird’s Eye View Contest
Lee’s weekly aerial photo puzzle, which I personally don’t really get, but apparently has a loyal following. Go figure.

Now that’s rich… the Seattle Times editorial board advising organized labor on what’s good for workers and the Democratic Party.

THE revolt of organized labor within the state Democratic Party is a kamikaze effort that works against the interests of the Democratic Party and the workers of Washington.

Yeah, because nobody has the interests of organized labor more at heart than Frank Blethen and his union-busting editors. And nobody is a bigger supporter of the Democratic Party than the Bush/Rossi/McGavick/Reichert/Hutchison endorsing Times.

That’s kinda like an ice axe advising Leon Trotsky on personal security.

The Washington State Labor Council and its allies don’t get this. They have their heads in the world of John L. Lewis and Dave Beck, and it is to the peril of the workers they represent.

We saw the same attitude in the International Association of Machinists’ negotiation with Boeing. The union made its demands, and it lost an airplane assembly line to a nonunion plant in South Carolina. It then held a news conference to announce that the loss was not its fault.

To which, really, the only rational and reasonable response is… FUCK YOU!

Do the Times’ editors bother to even read their own business columnist, the excellent Jon Talton? Do they really believe that cheerleading Boeing’s race-to-the-bottom decision to move thousands of jobs out of state is going to endear the Times to local readers?

If you’re ever confused about how to access the SOV lanes to and from Mercer Island, you might want to turn to the Times’ editors for advice. But when it comes to what’s good for workers and the Democratic Party… not so much.

Once again, isn’t it ironic that it is Darcy Burner, not Dave Reichert, who is playing the bigger role in our national health care debate? According to The Hill:

The head of a not-for-profit organization affiliated with House Democratic liberals plans to raise $1 million next year to give liberals an edge in public policy battles with the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

Darcy Burner, the executive director of ProgressiveCongress.org, a nonprofit education and advocacy organization, has played a behind-the-scenes role in the healthcare debate, applying constant pressure on Democratic leaders to keep the public option on the negotiating table.

[…] The renamed group, which includes an educational wing organized under section 501(c)3 of the tax code and a 501(c)4 advocacy wing, has served as an important bridge between House liberals and outside groups such as MoveOn.org, US Action, People For the American Way and the AFL-CIO. It has also worked with influential liberal blogs such as Daily Kos and OpenLeft to provide updates of internal Democratic deliberations and keep up a drumbeat of demand for the public option.

But, you know, don’t expect any coverage of Darcy’s efforts in the Seattle Times, because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to dismiss her as inexperienced should choose to run for office again.