Search Results for: Reichert

Yet another analyst has upgraded WA-08 to tossup status, this time the liberal, yet cautious, Swing State Project:

WA-08 (Reichert): Lean Republican to Tossup

Of all the vulnerable Republican incumbents this year, we feel compelled to acknowledge that Dave Reichert is the first to lose a clear edge over his opponent, Democrat Darcy Burner. Reichert’s incumbency is less potent than other vulnerable incumbents in the Lean R column given his short tenure. Furthermore, he hasn’t been addressing his fundraising as seriously as other similarly-situated Republicans, allowing Burner to build a $1.25 million to $916K cash-on-hand advantage. In a tilt-Dem district (D+2.3) in a state and region where Obama is showing some early strength over McCain, Reichert is standing on shaky ground.

Add to that the million dollars in TV time the DCCC has already reserved, combined with the NRCC’s catastrophic money disadvantage (only $6 million in the bank as of June 30th) and Reichert better turn in some surprising numbers over the next couple months if he wants to stay competitive.

The Stranger’s Eli Sanders slogs today about Gov. Gregoire’s last minute endorsement of Barack Obama, just before the WA caucuses…

It was a coup for Obama and smart politics for Gregoire. […] It also established an IOU with the Obama campaign, one they’re paying back—or beginning to pay back—this week. It may be too cynical to cast this as a purely financial transaction, but if you’re wondering how much Gregoire’s endorsement was worth to the Obama campaign the answer, so far, seems to be about $320,000.

Political payback? Huh. Okay, maybe. I suppose that’s how this game is played.

But if a funder with a nominee’s wife is payback for a crucial endorsement from a sitting governor, it makes you wonder what the hell Dave Reichert did to earn payback funders from Tom Delay, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, George Bush, Laura Bush, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani?

But then, Reichert is a conscience driven independent, so I guess it’s inappropriate to ask that question.

$100,000. That’s how much we raised for Darcy Burner last week via Act Blue alone, much of it coming over a 48 hour period. Wow. Simply wow.

That’s roughly equivalent to twenty days of early July fundraising, and it has lifted a huge burden off Darcy’s shoulders as she’s taken time off from her grueling campaign schedule to tend to herself and her family after losing their house in a fire. Now, thanks to her many friends online, Darcy can devote the time she needs to getting her life back in order without giving up any ground to Dave Reichert.

So a huge thanks to the dozens of blogs nationwide who joined in this effort, and to the thousands of members of our broader netroots community for this extraordinary show of affection and support. And of course, if you haven’t already given, it’s never to late to help buy Darcy a little extra time.

Yesterday started out with a modest goal. About $5,000 a day is what Darcy Burner needs to raise through the month of July just to keep pace with Dave Reichert, so every $5,000 chunk we raised for her would be one day more that she could devote to herself and her family after the devastating loss of their home and all their possessions in Monday’s fire. I didn’t know how many $5,000 chunks we could raise, but I was confident we could help lift at least a few days of fundraising off Darcy’s shoulders.

Well, thanks largely to the overwhelming support of the national netroots we’ve already raised over $85,000 in just 24 hours… that’s roughly equivalent to 17 days of fundraising this time of the year. Wow. And Markos is determined to raise $150,000 in online contributions, Darcy’s entire target for the month of July.

This is more than just money, it is a gift of time and an outpouring of affection that has buoyed Darcy’s spirits just as the full impact of her loss finally started to sink in. The campaign tells me she has canceled her schedule at least through the end of the week and will reevaluate day by day after that.

So if you haven’t already, please give to Darcy so that she and her family have the time to heal, without giving up an inch in her race against Reichert.

Give Darcy some time:

This morning HA joined with dozens of other blogs nationwide in an impromptu fundraiser to help give Darcy Burner the time she needs to tend to herself and her family in the aftermath of yesterday’s devastating house fire, and without having to worry about the demands of the campaign. $5,000 a day… that’s about how much money Darcy needs to raise to keep pace with Reichert at this point in the campaign… and each $5,000 chunk we raise online is one less day that she has to spend fundraising during the month of July.

Well, by 3PM this afternoon we’d already raised over $50,000 $60,000 $75,000… the equivalent of a ten twelve fifteen day breather for Darcy and her family. Amazing! And Markos at Daily Kos has now set an ambitious goal of raising her entire $150,000 July target:

We can’t help with the “campaign” side of things, but we can help with the money side of things. Darcy would have to raise about $150,000 in the month of July to keep up with her Republican opponent. Us bloggers are going to try and raise that for her.

Your generous donation is more than just an investment in WA-08 and the US House, it is a precious gift of time… time that Darcy and her family need to put their lives back together. So please join us in giving today.

Give Darcy some time:

Mankind has witnessed a number of horrors in recent decades—the Rwandan genocide… the ongoing tragedy in Darfur… DOE’s stormwater regulations—but none, according to Seattle Times editorialist Kate Riley a few weeks back, matched that of a state Democratic Party press release criticizing Dino Rossi for deliberately attempting to hide his Republican affiliation:

Oh, horrors! Stop the presses. Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is trying to “rebrand” himself as a member of the Grand Old Party. How sinister.

The real horror here is the state Democratic party’s attempt, in a press release today, to invent a scandal out of nothing — and, worse, the premise for their argument is founded on an apparent belief that voters are too ignorant to know that “GOP” and “Republican” are the same thing….

Really, Kate? Well, I hate to say “I told you so”… so I’ll just let Postman say it for me:

Dino Rossi’s rebranding effort may pay off with voters who say they don’t know what it means when a candidate declares himself a member of the “GOP Party.” […] A recent poll by Stuart Elway says that about 25 percent of respondents didn’t know what GOP meant.

Elway asked respondents which party they thought a candidate who “prefers GOP Party” is associated with. 15% didn’t know, 7% said Democratic and 3% other. And of that 25% who didn’t know or got it wrong, 27% identified themselves as Independents and 26% as Democrats. Only 18% of Republicans were confused.

This came as no surprise to Postman, who adds:

That’s where the greatest benefit of rebranding could come for a Republican trying to buck a 24-year gubernatorial losing streak for the party.

And you can trust Postman on this, because he’s one of those credible corporate media bloggers.

Anybody who knows anything about initiatives knows that a good ballot title can mean a couple extra points at the polls, and no doubt Rossi took advantage of the new top-two primary to jigger the ballot to his advantage. You can’t really blame Rossi, I guess, for this calculated deception—he is a politician after all—but neither can you blame the Democrats for their efforts to educate voters by pointing it out.

It is at the very least ironic then, that Riley, a member of an editorial board that has argued persuasively for government openness, should so vehemently defend Rossi’s deliberate obfuscation, while hyperbolically attacking a Democratic press release on the subject. But as I wrote at the time…

[T]hat’s the sort of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” partisanship we’ve come to expect from an amen editorialist who applauded Dave Reichert’s sexist dismissal of Harvard grad Darcy Burner as a ditzy blond, while condemning Burner as the reincarnation of Karl Rove.

No doubt I can be just as much a partisan propagandist as Riley and her colleagues on the Times ed board. The difference is, I admit it.

At the end of last week, after I wrote about the Democratic Congress’ spineless cave-in on the White House’s desired FISA legislation, our good friend Eric Earling made a flailing attempt at a point here:

Mark Halperin makes this observation about the FISA compromise today, supported by Barack Obama and 105 House Democrats (including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer):

Watch to see how liberal bloggers and the commentariat react.

Locally, Lee, aka Sound Politics commenter “thehim,” is not pleased at all.

Washington Democrats Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, and Adam Smith joined Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Dave Reichert in voting for the measure.

More proof the netroots does not represent the mainstream of American politics on the issues of the day.

Now someone who isn’t a complete idiot could probably figure out simply by looking at Congress’ approval ratings to know that what Congress is doing is not a good barometer of public opinion. And as I’ve been reading through Great American Hypocrites, the latest book from Glenn Greenwald, the process by which Eric ended up in this bubbling stew of idiocy is well documented.

When it comes to beliefs in limited government, Republicans in this country went from being true believers of constraining executive power (when Clinton was in the White House) to being unapologetic big government advocates now that Bush is there and we’re “fightin’ the terra’ists.” As Greenwald explains:

Being an American who believed in the core political principles of the country always meant adhering to these standards and embracing these values. Today’s Republican Party, acting contrary to its election rhetoric of conservatism and limited government power, has repudiated, trampled upon, and made a mockery of the core principles defining our country.

Today in the right-wing world, the very ideas that they spent the last several decades loudly touting and that long defined America have become the hallmarks of leftist radicalism. And the media has dutifully ingested this new framework. Thus, our Beltway establishment first looked the other way, then acted to protect the President of the United States once it was revealed that he was spying on the communications of American citizens in violation of the leftist doctrine called “law.”

One could also look at the statements by conservatives Bob Barr and Ron Paul to understand that opposition to the FISA bill is not coming solely from “liberal bloggers,” but also from principled conservatives as well. This issue isn’t about left vs. right here. It’s about keeping the Executive branch of the government in check, something that should be important regardless of who’s in the White House, or regardless of whether you have a more liberal or conservative view.

Earlier this week, I was reminded of why this matters as I took a trip down to Covington to see my in-laws. As I’ve mentioned before, my father-in-law is a staunch Republican, even to the extent that he has serious doubts about McCain’s Republican credentials. He’s retired now and spends his days working on his long-time hobby: building engines and exploring alternative energy solutions for homes and vehicles. His latest tangent is with Kei Class Japanese trucks.

As Dana and I pulled into the driveway, he was standing next to one of the trucks. I could tell he was excited to give me a demo. The vehicle looked like a Smart Car turned into a pickup truck with the steering wheel on the right side. He had a second one in his workshop and we hopped in for a quick drive around the block. As we took off down the street, I said to him, “Is what we’re doing legal?”

He replied, “No, do you want to ask me if a care?”

I laughed and said, “No, I already know the answer to that.”

He and I have obviously had quite a few discussions on politics over the years, so he knowingly said, “I think you and I have some overlap in our thinking on this.”

Kei class trucks are in legal limbo in this country (as you can see from this thread). They are not up to federal emission standards and therefore there’s a question as to whether or not it’s legal to drive them on the roads – even if your particular state registers it and gives you a plate. These vehicles get fantastic gas mileage for a pickup truck (~45-50 mpg), so their popularity is starting to take off. The attitudes towards the federal government expressed in that thread by those in Mississippi and Tennessee over a law that was limiting their freedom isn’t much different that the attitudes expressed in California and Washington over medical marijuana laws. And as you might expect, I find the federal laws to be unjustified in both cases.

Whenever the topic of FISA comes up, Bush supporters blindly cheer on the ability for the President to monitor our communications without warrants, yet few of them seem to apply this logic to when a Democratic Administration is in power. When the reality of an Obama Administration sets in, and their wild caricatures of what he’ll do take shape in their minds, the idea of giving him the power to spy on people without oversight in the name of national security takes on a different light – especially considering that it’s not hard to equate either gun control or combating global warming with national security.* As an Obama supporter, I’m relatively confident that he’s not the kind of leader who would abuse that power, but that’s beside the point. No President should have these kinds of powers. With no oversight, they’ll inevitably be abused for political purposes. This is why we have things like the 4th Amendment in the first place.

When I brought this up in the comment thread to the Sound Politics post, commenter Russell Garrard summed it up quite well:

When an Obama says that he wants to register all semi-auto guns just in case any terrorists are stockpiling them, we right-wingers will scream like stuck pigs. But nobody will take us seriously**, because we’ve already made the argument that “if you’re not a terrorist, you’ve got nothing to worry about.”

Is it asking too much for the main blogger at Seattle’s most popular Republican blog to grasp this fact? Apparently so.

* For the record, I agree with the court’s decision today that D.C.’s gun ban is unconstitutional.

** Well, Mark Halperin might.

UPDATE: Washblog diarist Jeffuppy breaks down the bullshit from the three Democratic Congressman from Washington – Baird, Dicks, and Smith – who voted for the FISA bill. All three of them are either blatantly lying about the bill or they never read it.

UPDATE 2: McJoan posts more information and provides a good roundup of links.

Currently gracing the front page of HA, Darryl highlights a recent poll that shows Darcy Burner trailing Dave Reichert by six points, Lee accuses Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress of being “pretty pathetic” on protecting our Fourth Amendment rights, and Will shows some love to King County Councilman Larry Phillips, a local Democratic politician who I have nothing particularly against, but quite honestly, have nothing particularly for… especially in a potential face-off against Executive Ron Sims, a man I openly admire (if often disagree with.)

But then, that’s the sort of ideologically rigid, uncompromisingly partisan amen blogging you’ve come to expect from HA. I suppose you can just write it off as one three of those “rare occasions” when we dare to stray from party orthodoxy.

In what’s turning out to be a parallel to the presidential race, the Reichert campaign is once again pushing the experience meme to the local media, picking up where they left off with their sexist job interview ad from 2006. (As I’ve mentioned before, Reichert’s dismissive comments about powerful and capable women, combined with his staunch opposition to reproductive rights, suggests a less than modern attitude toward the opposite gender.)

The Seattle P-I’s Gregory Roberts is the latest journalist to ask the question of whether experience will play a decisive role in this campaign, and over all, I think he answers it in a pretty evenhanded manner. Though of course I’d think that, considering much of that answer included an extensive conversation with me.

Burner established her credibility as a candidate with her ability to raise money. She caught on quickly with the “netroots,” the informal community of left-wing bloggers that was emerging as a political force.

“She’s one of us,” Seattle blogger David Goldstein said recently. “Deep down, she’s a geek.”

Goldstein solicited donations for Burner’s campaign on his horsesass.org Web site. He met Burner in 2005 at a training program for would-be progressive political candidates and activists.

“She’s one of the smartest politicians I’ve met,” Goldstein said. “She is an incredibly hard worker. She is just absolutely relentless.”

Burner’s political ideology makes her more appealing to the left than Reichert: She wants immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while he wants to fight to victory; she’s pro-choice, while he’s anti-abortion; he supports the Bush tax cuts, and she thinks they wrongly favor the rich.

But beyond that, Goldstein said, Burner’s background is a plus.

“Congress could use a little bit of Microsoft, and coming from this district, that kind of makes sense,” he said.

“What we don’t have in Congress are people like Darcy Burner who truly understand high technology and the industries that are driving our economy and our region,” he said.

Besides, Goldstein said, Reichert’s experience didn’t prepare him especially well for Congress, where he’s rated as the 401st most influential House member by congress.org.

“He wasn’t a lawyer, she’s not a lawyer. He wasn’t a legislator, she’s not a legislator,” he said.

“This idea that she should have been a city councilperson first and then moved on up — that’s an argument for incumbency,” Goldstein said. “That says the only experience for public office is public office.”

Reporters who have interviewed me know that not only do I like to talk, I can sometimes get pretty damn tangential, so if anything, Roberts has me coming off a bit more concise and focused than I probably did on the phone. That said, I can pretty much sum up my thoughts on this issue by restating my belief that holding elected office should be an act of public service, not a reward for it.

Campaign spokesman Mike Shields likes to point toward Reichert’s long career in law enforcement as a prerequisite for office: “Dave has done this since he was a cop on the beat — helping people solve problems.” But while I certainly honor and respect the hard and sometimes dangerous work of all our first responders, it is not especially relevant to what goes on in the halls of Congress, as evidenced by Reichert’s own ranking as the 401st most powerful person in Congress, ahead of only 34 other representatives, some of whom aren’t even retired, indicted, behind bars, or dead.

It is understandable that in 2004, Reichert ran as “the Sheriff”—that is how most voters knew him, and that was the experience, however irrelevant to the task of legislating, that best recommended him for the job. But after two terms in Congress, it is past time for him to start running as “the Congressman.” And if voters find his job performance in that capacity wanting, then it’s time for them to give Darcy Burner a second, closer look.

When Seattle Times political reporter David Postman sat down with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently, talk turned to the difficulty Dems have had sticking to their agenda in light of the narrow majority they hold in the Senate. But Pelosi told Postman that they were working harder, particularly on Iraq. (The emphasis is mine):

“This time we just said, ‘What do we want in this bill? What is the statement that needs to be made?’

Part of that statement has been to reflect what is in a document called the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. Created by Burner and a team of experts, the plan calls for a rapid troop withdrawal and an increased diplomatic and humanitarian effort in Iraq.

The plan has been endorsed by other Democratic congressional challengers, as well as some retired military officers.

Big threads of the plan include legislation that already existed in Congress but failed to pass under two years of Democratic control.

“You could think of a million things you could do better in terms of Iraq, probably at least a million,” Pelosi said. “But it’s a question of where you put the focus. And yes, indeed, what she has done helped focus that.”

And Burner got other candidates to sign on. “That drumbeat isn’t lost on Congress.”

There are some who have attempted to dismiss Burner’s efforts on the Responsible Plan as mere political calculation, while others have attempted to dismiss the effort itself. When asked to comment on the Plan, Dave Reichert routinely brushes of the questioner, claiming matter-of-factly that Burner didn’t even write it.

As usual, Reichert couldn’t be further from the truth. Indeed, the back story on the Plan is at least as revealing as the Plan itself.

The Plan was conceived during the heady days of Burner’s remarkable Internet fundraiser, when she raised an astounding $123,000 in small donations from 3,200 contributers over a weekend in August. As President Bush was stopping traffic in Bellevue to raise money for Reichert, Burner and a handful of experts assembled at a hotel down the block to livestream an innovative, online “town hall meeting” on the war in Iraq. And near the end of the broadcast, Burner made a surprise announcement that Gen. Paul Eaton had agreed to work with her to create a comprehensive proposal to responsibly draw down our troops and bring them home.

Burner’s bold announcement drew little coverage, even here on HA, because quite frankly I thought she might have gotten a little caught up in the moment. This is not the kind of thing that mere congressional challengers do—or are even capable of doing—and I winced at a promise I thought she would have a tough time delivering in a credible manner.

Burner’s staff and advisers were even less enthusiastic. A candidate’s primary job early in a campaign is to raise money, and the consultancy class frowns upon nearly anything that might distract the candidate from precious “call time.” It is also generally accepted campaign wisdom that challengers are usually best off avoiding specificity on issues so that it is the incumbent’s record that draws the scrutiny of voters.

Throughout the fall of 2007 advisers suggested Burner reconsider the project, and I had more than one conversation with nervous staffers who worried that her efforts were costing the campaign far too much in time, focus, and financial resources. The DCCC, whose favor Burner couldn’t afford to lose, was equally unenthusiastic, and while I’m told they never asked her to abandon the plan, they never encouraged her either… and they certainly didn’t encourage other challengers to sign on.

But Burner proved undaunted. No doubt personal ambition drives all politicians to some extent—like blogging, it is an inherently narcissistic profession—but Burner’s political ambitions have always been motivated by what she sees as an extraordinary opportunity to make a difference. For Burner, most of the elements of what eventually became the Responsible Plan were obvious; in fact many had already been proposed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission or in existing legislation. What Burner hoped to produce was a comprehensive proposal that could serve as a framework for enacting a realistic legislative agenda over a relatively short amount of time.

And that is what Burner eventually willed into creation, a Responsible Plan so credible that it has drawn the endorsement of over 50 other House and Senate challengers along with numerous military and national security experts, and has, in the words of Speaker Pelosi, “helped focus” the agenda of the Democratic leadership.

One thing that remains clear is that by sending Darcy Burner to the other Washington, 8th CD voters will not only get a reliable vote on the issues they care about most, but a remarkably smart, independent and creative leader who through hard work, determination, and sheer chutzpah will quickly rise up the Democratic ranks. Burner doesn’t want to go to Congress to be a rubberstamp for Nancy Pelosi, she wants to go there to solve problems.

That is what she has done with her Responsible Plan. And that is what Burner will do as the elected representative from Washington’s 8th Congressional District.

Republican GOP apologist Kate Riley has her undies in a knot over Democrats’ efforts to taunt Dino Rossi for refusing to embrace the “Republican” label.

The real horror here is the state Democratic party’s attempt, in a press release today, to invent a scandal out of nothing — and, worse, the premise for their argument is founded on an apparent belief that voters are too ignorant to know that “GOP” and “Republican” are the same thing — or that they will live in a cave between now and the general election, missing what will likely be another tortuous high-profile campaign where each candidate is thoroughly dissected.

Uh-huh. I’ve read a lot of horribly written press releases in my day, but I can’t think of any that I’d call a “horror.” (I mean, it’s just a press release for chrissakes, Kate. Get a grip.) But then that’s the sort of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” partisanship we’ve come to expect from an amen editorialist who applauded Dave Reichert’s sexist dismissal of Harvard grad Darcy Burner as a ditzy blond, while condemning Burner as the reincarnation of Karl Rove.

As for her “voters are smart” defense of Rossi’s petty gamesmanship, her and her paper’s professed faith in our electorate is not only conveniently selective, it entirely misses the point. This isn’t about the top-two primary or the tone of a state Dem press release, it’s about Dino Rossi cynically seeking to avoid his party’s damaged brand—unlike every other Republican running for statewide office—because he believes the “GOP” designation gives him a slight advantage over, well… being plain-spoken honest.

That said, Riley’s apparent assertion that actual words have little meaning is, I suppose, understandable, given the quality of the prose we’ve come to expect from her editorial board.

(©2006 TVW. View full source here.)

About an hour ago I received an email from YouTube informing me that at TVW’s request, they had pulled my clip of Dave Reichert talking about his intent to cut Medicare. I am in the process of filing a counter notice, and fully intend to defend my rights under the law.

But as you can see, it didn’t take me very long to upload the clip to another service. TVW is free to request LiveLeak pull this clip too, but there are plenty more video serving services where they came from—not to mention the technical ability to serve the clip myself—and I’m happy to play this game at least as long as TVW. Nothing will stop me from presenting Reichert’s own damning words to the public, short of a court order. (And perhaps, not even that.)

As I told TVW President and CEO Greg Lane yesterday, I will be happy to use TVW’s own embedded player with a time sequence parameter, once they make it available… but I’m not willing to wait. There are several fundamental issues at stake here, not the least of which being my Constitutional right to political speech, and a defense of the fair use exemption, one of the principle tools that make news reporting and commentary possible.

Had Mr. Lane contacted me before contacting YouTube, this confrontation might have been avoided. With a mutually acceptable technical compromise in the offing, it would be a shame to escalate this dispute any further… but that decision is now solely in the hands of TVW.

Somewhat confused by this morning’s Seattle Times editorial, “Expand GI benefits,” I sat down to pick apart its arguments, only to find… there aren’t any. At least none that adequately defend a central part of their thesis.

Let the fisking begin.

A VASTLY improved and expanded package of GI educational benefits is caught in an unseemly standoff between Congress and the White House. Both manage to come off as penny-pinching ingrates.

I think it fair to conclude from the lede that the Times has two theses: 1) expanding GI educational benefits is a good thing (a sentiment with which I heartily agree); and 2) the “ingrates” in both Congress and the White House are equally to blame. Now let’s see how they go about defending their theses.

The benefits have not been updated for a generation, and the expense of the 10-year package is $52 billion — about five months of fighting the Iraq war.

Chalk that up as an adequate argument in defense of Thesis 1. I haven’t double-checked their facts, but throwing caution to the wind, we’ll just take them at their word this time.

The federal government is bleeding red ink, but a mix of Republicans and Democrats has suddenly gotten fussy about how the benefits are dealt with in the budget.

Really? Do tell.

President Bush threatens a veto because he objects to the benefit being included with his request for extra money for the war.

And the Democratic Congress?

Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., claim re-enlistment rates would suffer if the maximum benefits were available after three years.

And the Democratic Congress?

The GOP presidential nominee wants those with more years of service to receive full benefits. Others counter the expanded benefits will boost enlistments.

And the Democratic Congress?

The Democratic Congress passed the new GI Bill, against the Republican objections, and now President Bush threatens to veto it. And this makes the current Congress a bunch of “penny-pinching ingrates,” how?

Congress and the White House have shameful records of providing for the welfare of the men and women in the U.S. armed forces.

True, but Congress has mostly been in the hands of Republicans for the past decade or so, so it seems kinda odd to blame Democratic members of this current Congress—you know, the Congress that just passed the expanded GI benefits the Times wants—for the admittedly “shameful record” of members who came before them, both Democrats and Republicans alike.

They were sent to war lightly equipped and have returned home wounded in body and spirit to often inadequate care.

Absolutely true, but I understand that as a defense of Thesis 1, not Thesis 2.

Our leaders ask extraordinary things of our all-volunteer military. Multiple overseas tours are routine, rotation cycles have been sped up, tours were extended to 15 months, and exhausted troops shuttle between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, a reasonable defense of Thesis 1.

Let the pragmatic at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue call the new GI educational benefits a cost of doing business.

Can’t argue with that. But it might useful, for the sake of argument, if the Times would bother to explain what was so unpragmatic about Congress passing the exact benefits their editorial demands?

For the rest of the nation, these overdue improvements represent both a humble thank you for sacrifices made and a measure of tribute for keeping a universal military draft at bay.

Turns out, they’re not so bad at explicating that Thesis 1 stuff after all. But I’m still waiting for a defense of Thesis 2.

Congress and the White House ask a lot of the military, but are only too willing to show their appreciation with rhetoric.

Um… and I hate to sound like a broken record here, but… Congress passed the GI Bill. How is that just rhetoric?

I think—and given the muddled nature of the editorial I’m not exactly sure—that the Times is criticizing Congress for attaching the GI Bill to a supplemental defense appropriations bill. That’s one of President Bush’s own complaints, though he objects to it because it makes the measure harder to veto. Standing on its own, the GI Bill wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance of a veto override, so it seems odd that the Times would object to such a pragmatic political maneuver at the same time it bemoans the lack of pragmatism “at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

I suppose the Times’ editors might have some other gripes about Congress and its Democratic leaders’ course of action on the GI Bill, but they haven’t bothered to voice them in this particular editorial. Likewise lacking is any constructive suggestion as to how Congress might overcome the White House’s objections, or move effectively forward in the face of a Presidential veto.

So why would the Times go out of its way to assign equal blame to Congress as an institution (and in such an unsupported manner), when it is clear that it is the White House and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill who threaten to block the GI Bill? Because it relieves them of the burden of calling out Rep. Dave Reichert, who voted against the GI Bill on the grounds that it levied a 0.47 percent tax surcharge on the portion of household income above $1 million a year.

Of course, my thesis is pure supposition, but as such it is at least as well supported as those of the Times.

Late Friday afternoon I received the following email from TVW President Greg Lane:

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

As the President of TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Television Network, I am writing to inform you that we are contacting YouTube and requesting they remove video clips posted which violate our copyright.

Because our commitment is to “gavel-to-gavel” coverage of statewide public affairs, TVW does not allow editing of our programming, and our copyright generally requires prior approval before any use can be made.

TVW’s unique contribution to the public debate in our state is to bring the entirety of events such as debates, conventions and legislative proceedings before citizens. As a result, we do allow individuals to link to complete TVW events. For example, if you would like to link to the entire event you posted on your blog on June 4, you can find it here, and you are very welcome to link to the complete event. If you would like links to other events, you can find them by searching TVW’s website. Our staff is also available to provide assistance if needed.

Thank you for your cooperation. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about our policy.

Regards,

Greg Lane
President

Notice that Lane (formerly Republican AG Rob McKenna’s chief of staff) didn’t ask me to remove the clip, he simply informed me that they were going straight to YouTube. Well, I wasn’t in a very good mood at the time, and was in a rush to head out the door, so I just quickly and curtly replied that if YouTube pulled the clip “I suppose I’ll just have to serve it myself and leave it to you to sue me.”

And that’s exactly what I intend to do, more or less… though I probably should have explicated my reasons so as not to come off as angry or impolite. My bad.

The clip in question consists of only 37 seconds out of an hour and five minutes of total coverage, and while I sympathize with TVW’s mission, if there is ever an example of the “fair use” doctrine, this is it. I have updated the original post to include a copyright notice and a link to the source video, and if I’m forced to repost I suppose I’ll try to edit the clip down to under 30 seconds. But that’s about as far as I’m willing to go without a court order.

TVW can write whatever it wants into its license agreement, but they can’t automatically impose more stringent copyright restrictions than provided by law. I signed no contract nor agreed to any license; I merely downloaded the WMV file from the TVW website (using perfectly legal software), excerpted a contiguous clip, and uploaded it to YouTube. My actions were both ethical and legal.

There are reasons why the courts have carved out, and Congress eventually codified, a fair use exemption for the purposes of news reporting and commentary, no doubt one of them being that an informed electorate, absolutely crucial to the functioning of our democracy, has needs that clearly trump the prerogatives of the copyright holder. And there is no better indication of the newsworthiness of Dave Reichert’s embarrassing speech within the context of the current election cycle than the fact that his campaign (or his party) has obviously prompted TVW to seek removal of this easily accessible clip, knowing full well that few voters will bother to sit through the entire hour-plus of tedious speechifying.

The disputed clip is far from the only TVW material on YouTube; hell, I’ve had another TVW clip in my publicly viewable YouTube gallery for over a year and a half! Clearly, TVW does not actively search YouTube for potential copyright violations—as far as I can tell they only go after those clips they’re pressured to go after.

Somebody complained to TVW, and it’s not hard to guess who or why. Reichert’s campaign wants to prevent us from easily comparing and contrasting his words before a gathering of the party elite, with his promises to voters, because these words are damaging. And the best way to hide Reichert’s public words from the public is to keep them buried 41 minutes into a 65 minute piece of insufferably boring streaming video.

Of course, if Reichert isn’t embarrassed to have his speech widely disseminated, he could always waive the extraordinary protections TVW is seeking on his behalf, and publicly urge them to grant reproduction without restriction, rather than privately nudging them to harass me for exercising my legal rights. But I’m not holding my breath.

So for now, enjoy Reichert promising to cut Medicare… while you can:

(©2006 TVW. View full source here.)

UPDATE:
YouTube finally pulled the clip, so I’ve uploaded it to LiveLeak. (I’m willing to play this game as long as TVW is.)