Search Results for: Reichert

It looks like Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s nominee apparent, has managed to squeak out a narrow victory in Washington state’s Republican caucus… but there’s not much for McCain to cheer about in the numbers:

Huckabee	23.7 %
McCain	25.5 %
Paul	20.6 %
Romney	16.5 %
Other	1.1 %
Uncommitted	12.7 %
(87.2% of precincts reporting.)

You’d think just days after McCain’s Super Duper Tuesday victories, the GOP’s putative nominee might be able to secure a tad more than a quarter of the vote in what is, let’s face it, not exactly hillbilly territory, yet he barely even managed to edge out rapture-ready Mike Huckabee. But that’s not the worst of it. 16.5% of WA Republicans caucused for Mitt Romney despite having dropped out of the race, while 21% went for Ron Paul despite, well, him being Ron Paul. And 12.7% of Republican caucus goers — some of the party’s most dedicated and active members — proved so disaffected that they pledged “uncommitted”. Way to rally around your nominee folks.

I know national polls have consistently shown McCain to be the GOP’s most viable candidate, but it’s hard to imagine a Republican victory in November without an enthusiastic base. And with a few points of turnout differential enough to make the difference in close races, down-ticket Republicans should be feeling awfully nervous right about now. (Yeah, I’m talkin’ to you Dave Reichert.)

Even in the Republican caucus it looks like Democrats came out the winner.

Via Dan…

Hey Dave… how’s that Giuliani endorsement working out for you?

If you’re wondering why Dave Reichert is so desperate to snag a seat on the Appropriations Committee, it all comes down to supply and demand. Reichert’s looking to the plum assignment as an opportunity to trade influence for campaign cash… something that’s been in short supply for the minority party this election cycle. And whoa boy, is there a lot of demand.

Reichert benefited from a flood of NRCC and RNC money in 2006, and still only managed to just squeak by newcomer Darcy Burner. But in 2008 the GOP has a helluva lot more turf to defend, and a helluva lot less cash on hand. Just take a look at the growing list of open House seats for a good illustration of the Democrats relative advantage:

Republicans
1.		(CA-52) Duncan Hunter		March 20, 2007
2.		(IL-18) Ray LaHood		July 27, 2007
3.		(MS-03) Chip Pickering		August 16, 2007
4.		(OH-15) Deborah Pryce		August 16, 2007
5.		(IL-14) Dennis Hastert *		August 17, 2007
6.		(AZ-01) Rick Renzi		August 23, 2007
7.		(MN-03) Jim Ramstad		September 17, 2007
8.		(IL-11) Jerry Weller		September 21, 2007
9.		(AL-02) Terry Everett		September 26, 2007
10.		(NM-01) Heather Wilson		October 5, 2007
11.		(OH-16) Ralph Regula		October 12, 2007
12.		(OH-07) David Hobson		October 14, 2007
13.		(NM-02) Steve Pearce		October 17, 2007
14.		(LA-01) Bobby Jindal *		October 21, 2007
15.		(CO-06) Tom Tancredo		October 29, 2007
16.		(NJ-03) Jim Saxton		November 9, 2007
17.		(WY-AL) Barbara Cubin		November 10, 2007
18.		(NJ-07) Michael Ferguson		November 19, 2007
19.		(LA-04) Jim McCrery		December 7, 2007
20.		(MS-01) Roger Wicker *		December 31, 2007
21.		(PA-05) John Peterson		January 3, 2008
22.		(CA-04) John Doolittle		January 10, 2008
23.		(LA-06) Richard Baker *		January 15, 2008
24.		(NY-25) Jim Walsh		January 24, 2008
25.		(FL-15) Dave Weldon		January 25, 2008
Democrats
1.		(CO-02) Mark Udall		January 16, 2007
2.		(ME-01) Tom Allen		May 9, 2007
3.		(NY- 21) Mike McNulty		October 29, 2007
4.		(NM-03) Tom Udall		November 10, 2007
5.		(IN-07) Julia Carson *		November 26, 2007
6.		(CA-12) Tom Lantos		January 2, 2008

(* Seats will be replaced prior to the 2008 election.)

25 open House seats for the Republicans compared to only 6 for the Democrats. And the money disparity is even worse; as of January 22, the DCCC reported over $30 million cash on hand, while the NRCC reported only $2.3 million… an amount equal to what they spent on Reichert alone in 2006. (In fact, the NRCC is sitting on almost $3.4 million of debt, so their balance sheet is actually in the red. Damn.)

If God helps those who help themselves, the same is true of the political parties, and Reichert better help himself to some hefty contributions and quick, if he hopes to stay on an even footing with Burner. Third term incumbents are generally expected to be pumping dollars into NRCC coffers, not sucking money out, and it’s not clear that his party can afford to make his race the same priority they did last time around. Oh… and I’m not so sure it helps Reichert that the man he’s trying to bump aside from the Appropriations seat is the man he’ll have to rely on to cut the big checks, NRCC chair Tom Cole.

It’s shaping up to be a tough year for Desperate Dave and his fellow Republicans.

When people talk about the progressive “netroots” the first thing that comes to mind are the plethora of local and national blogs that have grown to challenge the legacy media’s diminishing control over the political narrative. But in fact it is much, much more than that, and one of the most exciting and important netroots developments of the past few years has been the growth of ActBlue, an online fundraising clearinghouse that is beginning to enable the financial power of the people to challenge the entrenched power of corporate America.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that money is speech, and in that context, the special interests of the ultra-wealthy have long spoken louder than the interests of the average Joe, but by democratizing fundraising, introducing efficiencies and creating new grassroots opportunities that flip the traditional top-down model on its head, ActBlue has begun a process that could eventually free candidates from the financial stranglehold of corporate sponsors. The fact is that money, and the media it buys, be it television, radio, direct mail or other, is the primary means by which candidates communicate their message to voters; no realistically achievable amount of doorbelling or coffee klatches can win a congressional district on its own, and no candidate can be expected to compete for votes without securing at least a somewhat level financial playing field. ActBlue provides a tool that doesn’t just enable progressive campaigns to tap into the aggregate resources of the public at large, it enables the people to organize ourselves in support of the candidates we prefer, as opposed to merely those candidates the political establishment would prefer we be limited to choose from.

During the 2006 cycle ActBlue showed its potential, enabling the national progressive netroots community to funnel its collective resources into a handful of high-profile local races… but that is nothing compared to what we have seen so far heading into 2008. In 2005 candidates raised $1,684,797 on ActBlue from 23,816 individual contributors. In 2007 those totals leaped tenfold to $16,872,127 from 169,287 contributors. And were only just now entering the heart of the fundraising season.

Locally, the impact and influence of this populist tool can be easily discerned from ActBlue’s list of Top Ten Candidates in 2007:

Candidate	Race		Contributors
John Edwards	President		53,433
Tim Johnson	SD-Sen		5583
Donna Edwards	MD-04		5582
Darcy Burner	WA-08		4189
Dennis Kucinich	President		3126
Rick Noriega	TX-Sen		3081
Eric Massa	NY-29		2577
Mark Pera	IL-03		2290
Charlie Brown	CA-04		2067
Joseph Sestak Jr	PA-07		2067

While the roughly $140,000 Darcy Burner raised via ActBlue in 2007 accounts for only 16% of her $858,125 total, it played a crucial role in her achieving an early TKO of her primary opponent, and has provided the difference between trailing incumbent Dave Reichert in cash-on-hand versus her surprising lead. Sure, it would take double-max contributions from only 30 Republican fat cats for Reichert to counter the efforts of Burner’s 4189 ActBlue donors, but there are many, many more of us than there are of them, and that is what really puts the fear of God into the political establishment on both sides of the aisle. Burner raised less than $32 per ActBlue donor (compared to an ActBlue average of $119 per contribution in 2007,) tapping into a much broader pool of potential donors than heretofore possible in local races, and virtually eliminating the financial advantages of incumbency: nearly 90% of Burner’s 2007 money came from individual contributions, while about half of Reichert’s money came from PACs and committee transfers.

It would be an overstatement to claim that ActBlue has changed the nature of political fundraising, but it sure does appear to be in the process. (At least for the Democrats. Republicans can’t seem to put together a comparable service.) And candidates like Burner sure do appear to be at the forefront of these changes.

When congressional candidates release their fundraising numbers ahead of the federal reporting deadline, it’s almost always good news, and that’s no exception for Darcy Burner, who just announced record numbers for the fourth quarter of 2007. Burner raised $339,494 — more than $290,000 (86-percent) coming from 1495 individuals. That’s the most ever for a Washington state challenger in any quarter of an off year, topping the $305,000 raised in the previous quarter when Burner benefited from an unprecedented $123,000 netroots fundraiser.

Burner’s 2008 campaign has now raised $858,125 total, finishing the year with an impressive $607,144 in the bank… more than half a million dollars more than at the same point during the last campaign. These results will put her in the top tier of Democratic challengers nationwide, and are a clear sign of a strong campaign and a thirst for change in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

No peep out of the Reichert camp yet on his 4Q numbers. I wonder why?

The numbers are not yet completely tallied, but later this month Darcy Burner will report over $600,000 cash on hand at the end of the 4th quarter, putting her near the top of Democratic challengers nationwide, and about a half-million dollars ahead of last cycle’s breakneck pace. The campaign tells me that her totals for the Oct-Nov period will top the $306,000 she reported for Jul-Sep, a quarter in which she benefited from an unprecedented $125,000 national netroots drive. Of course, we don’t know Dave Reichert’s numbers, but I’d wager Darcy has now outraised the incumbent in each of the past four quarters, a nearly unprecedented accomplishment.

I suppose Darcy’s fundraising prowess is no longer the news it was last time around, a race in which the then first-time candidate surprised the media and political establishment by putting up record numbers, and coming within a silver hair of defeating “The Sheriff.” But those who dismiss these early numbers as just an inconsequential horse race willfully ignore the important information they tell us about the candidates and the race ahead.

The most obvious conclusions to draw from the 2007 fundraising totals are that the 2008 race for Washington’s 8th Congressional District remains extremely tight, and that contrary to the prediction of naysayers, support for electing Darcy (and defeating Reichert) has grown, not waned, since November 2006. While Reichert has relied mostly on large donors and PACs (not to mention creative accounting) to pad his totals thus far, the overwhelming majority of Darcy’s money has come in the form of relatively small, individual contributions. This not only suggests that Darcy has significantly greater fundraising upside in the quarters to come, it also demonstrates the kind of broad, grassroots appeal that can translate directly into votes come election day.

But I think that the biggest takeaway from the the money race is that Darcy is just a damn hard worker. With Darcy surpassing her goal of raising $25,000 over the final 72 hours of 2007, it would be easy to pen a headline like, “Burner rides late fundraising surge to record numbers,” but that would be misleading. Darcy didn’t just ride the surge, she created it. In that context, Darcy’s lead in the money race doesn’t just predict how the two candidates will perform over the final nine months of the campaign, but how they would perform in office, if elected. I have many complaints about how my friends in the traditional media (particularly the mean-spirited liars on the Seattle Times editorial board) presented Darcy to voters in 2006, but there is no question they completely overlooked her extraordinary work ethic. That Darcy has run this hard for this long demonstrates that she is willing and able to devote the kind of energy and commitment her district deserves. If elected, Darcy Burner would simply work harder than Dave Reichert, and that’s a message voters should hear.

I hear the phrase “exit strategy” and I automatically think about Iraq, and the Bush administration’s lack of a strategy (or desire) to get out of that ill-conceived war. So as we exit 2007 it’s important to pay attention to our own strategy for exiting the disastrous policies of the past seven years. Looking at the obstructionism of the Republicans in Congress and their party’s steadfast determination to stay the course at home and abroad, my personal exit strategy begins with more and better Democrats… and locally, that begins with Darcy Burner.

The 4th Quarter fundraising period is drawing to a close, and where Darcy stands in relation to Dave Reichert and to her fellow Democratic challengers will largely determine the level of financial and logistical support she will initially receive from the DCCC and other organizations. A strong showing will put Darcy near the top of the list, positioning her to make a strong run out of the gate in 2008. A disappointing showing could set her campaign back into the second tier of competitive races, giving Reichert the breathing room he so desperately needs.

Darcy needs your help to prove to the folks in D.C. that she has what it takes to kick Reichert’s ass, and that’s why I’m asking you to give whatever you can to help push Darcy’s 4th Quarter results over the top. Darcy is hoping to raise an additional $25,000 by the end of the quarter — if we all chip in, she can do that and more, and we can all do our part in bringing change to the other Washington.

Please give to Darcy Burner today.

If anybody wonders why newspaper readership is inexorably moving away from print and online, one need only look at Seattle’s two dailies today for a crystal clear illustration of at least one major factor: the online editions simply appear more informative.

Both papers devote their two right columns — fully one third of their available front page real estate — to the same big story: the $97.2 million wasted by the Port of Seattle… or so says a performance audit commissioned by the State Auditor and conducted by an out of state firm. Neither article actually bothers to explain what a “performance audit” is, its intended purpose, or that it’s not by nature as objective or uniformly defined as the more common financial audit. People read the word “audit” and they think of ledgers and spreadsheets and absolute mathematical facts, but more than just an examination of the books, a performance audit is intended to analyze whether an agency is performing its actual task, and recommend procedures to increase efficiency. It’s kinda subjective.

Not that I mean to dismiss the audit or defend the Port, which has in recent years been wracked by scandal, boondoggles, and administrative arrogance, it’s just that the big news isn’t all that much news to even the most casual Port observer, and that headline-friendly $97.2 million figure is more printed in soy-based ink than chiseled in stone. The Port’s problems are well-known and long term, and what both papers neglect to tell readers is that in each of the past two cycles, efforts to elect a reformist majority to the commission have been thwarted when the business community successfully targeted one of the reformist incumbents.

As for the other headlines, the P-I fills up the entire rest of its front page with a dire warning not to inhale buttery flavor, a disturbing and important story, but again, not actually news, while the Times matches by following yesterday’s story about lead in children’s jewelry with a “special report” revealing that few children in WA state are ever tested for lead poisoning. You’d think that with all this focus on lead poisoning, the Times might have mentioned the results of Darcy Burner’s free lead tests? (Hmm. I bet if Rep. Dave Reichert had conducted this innovative public service he would have warranted a headline and a congratulatory editorial touting his bipartisanship.) But no, it’s more important to tell us that Americans like iPods and BBQ, but that beer consumption has fallen 12-percent since 1980… a statistic entirely explained by the fact that I graduated college in 1985.

Read the front page of the dead tree edition of either paper, and you’d think apart from the big story about the Port, it was a pretty slow local news day… but go online and you’ll actually find plenty of hard news stories to accompany your morning cup of joe coffee-flavored steamed milk. Gov. Gregoire will be doing what she does best, suing the powerful on behalf of the people, this time the EPA for denying states the right to set their own auto emissions standards… A groundbreaking wave-energy project has received a first in the nation license to begin construction in Makah Bay… The downtown bus tunnel will remain closed through Monday due to computer problems (did they upgrade to Vista?), snarling holiday traffic… And despite our supposedly crappy congressional representation, the new 2008 federal budget includes an additional $24 million for Puget Sound cleanup, and $88 million for building light rail:

Sound Transit officials said Thursday the money, allocated on a competitive basis and more than initially expected, is a vote of confidence in the rail extension. The allotment also bodes well for Sound Transit’s chances of winning a $750 million grant, which the agency will seek in January, officials said.

(Shhh. Don’t tell Ted Van Dyk.)

It’s all in the P-I and the Times, and more. You just wouldn’t know it glancing at the newsstand.

Earlier this week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin pushed ahead with his plans to change the FCC’s media consolidation rules—over objection of the masses at public hearings like the recent one in Seattle.

Martin’s move comes on the heels of Congressional hearings where lawmakers, both Democratic and Republican, took Martin to the woodshed over the plan itself, over his rush to move forward with it, over a tin ear that cannot hear the voice of the people, for his process seemingly designed to suppress public opinion (like announcing the Seattle hearings five days in advance), and because he published an op-ed piece written (and probably submitted) before the Seattle hearing. “My folks in Seattle believe that they were treated like a bunch of chumps“, scolded Rep. Jay Inslee.

The objections of the people and Congress were for naught:

The Federal Communications Commission voted on Tuesday to loosen media ownership restrictions in the 20 biggest U.S. cities, despite objections from consumer groups and a threat by some U.S. senators to revoke the action.

The FCC voted 3-2, along party lines, to ease the 32-year-old ban on ownership of a newspaper and broadcast outlet in a single market.

Perhaps Martin felt safe in giving us—the people—the finger, but when you give Congress the finger you might just find a foot planted in your crotch. Readers don’t generally expect many positive references to Rep. Dave Reichert here at HA but, considering this issue resulted in Goldy writing a post titled I heart Frank Blethen, that I am about to cite Reichert’s web site shows you just how powerful and bipartisan this issue really is.

That’s right…Reichert is one of the good guys in this battle. As a gesture of gratitude (or maybe something more like a Pavlovian reward) I’ll quote this fabulous press release from Reichert:

Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) joined Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) today in introducing the Media Ownership Act, legislation that will counter the damaging rule handed down by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow consolidation of media companies. The legislation would prevent the FCC’s hurried rule from becoming law by requiring more time for public comment and changing the timeframe for proposed revisions to be published. It would also go into effect retroactively, back to October 1, 2007.

“This legislation changes technical provisions but is simple in its message and effects,” said Reichert. “We want local media to remain local, diverse and free. I’m pleased to join with Jay Inslee to counter the damage that this ruling could bring. I’m not only disappointed in their ruling today, but also the process in which it came about. Last month when the FCC held one of the rushed public hearings in Seattle, I spoke out, calling for retention of the current rules. Relaxing restrictions does not serve our citizens, and would lead to the detriment of localism and diversity that we still enjoy. We’re taking swift action to hopefully prevent these changes from affecting our communities and the families at home. I respect the free market and want a marketplace that allows corporations to operate as freely as possible. However, I believe it is a role of government to stand between corporations and consumers when the public interest is at stake. I will continue to do what I can to maintain a diverse, free and unbiased source of news for my constituents and across this nation.”

Specifically, the legislation would:

• Require the FCC to publish any proposed revisions to its media ownership rules at least 90 days prior to a vote.
• Require at least 60 days for public comment and the FCC must respond to these comments within 30 days.
• Require the FCC to complete a separate proceeding to evaluate the effects of consolidation on broadcast localism before any vote.
• Require the establishment of an independent panel on female and minority ownership. The panel would provide data and offer recommendations to the FCC on how to increase female and minority ownership. The FCC must receive and act on these recommendations prior to voting on any proposed ownership rules.
• The bill applies to any attempt to alter rules made by the FCC after October 1, 2007.

Sen. Maria Cantwell is already cosponsoring similar legislation in the Senate.

Martin is a punk, and an arrogant punk at that. Kudos to Rep. Reichert, Rep. Inslee and Sen. Cantwell for listening to the people and giving Martin a good swift kick in the nuts.

I talked with Sen. Brian Weinstein this afternoon and while he gave a lot of reasons for not seeking a second term — tired of “banging my head against the wall” on issues like the Homeowners Bill of rights, disgust at the recent special session, etc — he says his primary motivation is that he simply needs to make money again… a commentary on our “citizen legislature” that I think deserves a more in depth conversation. Far from bitter or defeated, Weinstein seemed genuinely cheerful at the turn of events, and gave credit to Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown for bringing Fred Jarrett into the fold, a goal that had consistently eluded House Speaker Frank Chopp. Weinstein may not have always been the most politic politician, but he was passionately progressive, racking up one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. He’ll be missed. (At least by me.)

As for Jarrett, well, now that he has torn that scarlet letter from his chest and replaced it with a bright blue “D”, I feel free to divulge a little secret. Back in January of 2006, when it became apparent that no other experienced candidate was willing to get into the congressional race against Dave Reichert, I went to Jarrett and pleaded with him to seek the Democratic nomination. He simply responded that he was “too old,” and that as a state we needed to pursue a “seniority strategy” by electing a younger candidate, preferably mid 30’s, to be in a position to eventually fill Norm Dicks’ role in the delegation.

I liked Darcy Burner, but up until that point I’d always thought of her youth as a liability. Jarrett’s response got me thinking about the many unique advantages Burner would bring to the job, and when, a few weeks later I started to forcefully advocate for her election, I did so with unquestioned enthusiasm. It was an uphill battle for an unknown novice to challenge a sitting incumbent, but I was confident that if she won, Burner would serve her district and the state well.

A while later I approached Jarrett again, this time asking him to publicly endorse Burner, arguing that the support of a respected Republican like him could sway enough votes to swing a close election. I was reminded of that conversation while reading Jarrett’s quote to Postman today:

“I felt there was a strong tradition in the Republican Party that really couldn’t be lost. So what I’ve been doing as long as I’ve been in the Legislature is trying to articulate that moderate Republican, progressive Republican, viewpoint, and what I found is I may have a lot of ego, but I don’t think I have enough ego to think anymore that I can do it.”

That’s kinda what Jarrett told me a year and a half ago, though not exactly in those words. I don’t know if Jarrett ultimately voted for Burner, but I can tell you that endorsing her would have required him to switch parties, and he just wasn’t prepared to go that far at that time. This was his GOP, dammit, and he didn’t want to give it over to those bastards. At least, that was the impression I came away with at the time.

But times change, as do political parties, and I think it fair to say that the GOP left Jarrett long before he left it. Jarrett’s decision was years in the making, as was the political transformation that has been sweeping formerly Republican suburban districts nationwide. As I wrote back in November of 2004, even in the immediate wake of the deeply disappointing 2004 election, the path toward a Democratic majority was clear: subdivide and conquer.

Just like the Democrats lost their base in the South with their support of civil rights legislation in the sixties, the GOP risks alienating their moderate, suburban base by abandoning fiscal conservatism to focus on right-wing social issues at home, and military and economic imperialism abroad. The neo-cons may dominate the national Republican leadership, but they do not represent the majority of suburban voters.

Families move to places like Mercer Island for better public schools, cleaner streets, safer neighborhoods, and all the other public services that a higher property tax base provides. These are people who believe in government because they benefit from it every day, and they routinely tax themselves to pay for the services they want.

These are people with whom urban Democrats have common ground, and we have an opportunity to exploit the wedge the neo-cons have provided, to expand our base politically and geographically. For in addition to a shared belief that good government is necessary to maintaining a high quality of life, suburban and city voters have a mutual interest in maintaining an economically and culturally vibrant urban core.

Welcome home Fred.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh Feit
The Stranger’s Josh Feit joins us for a recap of the week’s news, and a look ahead to what’s coming up. Are North Seattleites NIMBYs? Is Dave Reichert reaching out to labor? Should Tim Eyman have been tased? All that and more, plus your calls.

8PM: What’s up with Cathy Sorbo’s teeth?
Local comedian and Seattle P-I columnist Cathy Sorbo joins us for the hour to share her own unique take on current events, plus an illuminating update from the world of dentistry.

9PM: Regional Blogger Roundup
TJ from Loaded Orygun and Jimmy from McCranium join us by phone for our monthly look at Northwest political news outside the Seattle metro market.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Eli Sanders looks at the Darcy Burner–Rep. Dave Reichert race in Washington’s 8th congressional district and asks, “What makes important people think that Eastside Democrat Darcy Burner can win in November 2008 the same congressional race that she lost last year?”

Sanders asked DCCC chair Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) who was in town to raise money for Burner this week. Van Hollen provides a number of reasons that don’t seem to completely convince Sanders…until he gets to this:

The most significant thing Van Hollen noted during the conference call was that the National Republican Congressional Committee, which last year spent about $2.5 million to help Reichert win, currently has only $2.5 million total cash on hand to help Republicans around the country. Contrast that with the $29.2 million that Van Hollen currently has to offer Democrats and you see not only a snapshot of the hurt that Bush has put on the Republican Party as a whole, but also a clear path to a Burner victory.

The Republican money deficit is far, far more serious than these figures tell. As Andrew Tannenbaum points out:

So far, 22 representatives have announced they are not running. Of these, 17 are Republicans and five are Democrats, and all five Democrats are from safe districts. […] Four of the Republican seats are safe (AL-02, CO-06, MS-03, and WY-AL), but the other 13 will be battlegrounds. In addition, there there are half a dozen seats the Republicans held in 2006 by tiny margins and will have to pour money into to defend. An example is NC-08, in which a totally unknown high school teacher with no political experience, no money, and no support from the national party, came with[in] 329 votes of unseating a wealthy four-term Republican congressman. There are a few Democratic freshmen who come from hostile districts such as Brad Ellsworth in IN-08, but most of them won by decent margins and have voted fairly conservatively in Congress and most are raising money like there is no tomorrow. For example, freshmen Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Ron Klein (FL-22), and Joe Sestak (PA-07) have all raised $1.5 million or more already. The median at this point for all 435 representatives is about $400,000.

NRCC chair Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) will have an enormous cash disadvantage with many open, currently Republican, seats to defend. Unquestionably there will be better investments for the NRCC’s limited funds than WA-08.

Dave Reichert is almost certainly going to have to find most of his own money this election. And given that his recent Bush-headlining fund-raiser raised more money for Burner than for his own campaign, he’ll have to find a strategy that doesn’t shoot himself in the face foot.

Yesterday the WA State Dems filed an FEC report alleging “serious violations” in Rep. Dave Reichert’s third quarter campaign finance report. Amongst other things, Democrats complained that it is impossible to figure out how much money Reichert raised from President Bush’s August visit because of how totally fucked up the accounting was, to which Reichert chief of staff Mike Shields responded:

“There is a fictional idea that somehow you can glean how much an event raised” by looking at an FEC report filed by the Reichert Washington Victory Committee.

Yeah… it’s totally unreasonable to expect to “glean how much an event raised” by looking at an FEC report of the, um, money the event raised. If this is how our campaign finance and disclosure laws work these days, the “fiction” is that we actually have any campaign finance and disclosure laws at all.

But Shields wasn’t finished. When asked how much he now believes the event raised, Shields prevaricated:

“I have given estimates that turned out to be wrong, so I am not doing that anymore.”

Well, he might try actually telling the truth, but then, I’m not “a veteran political operative” like Shields is, so what do I know?

This may be a bit of a Hillary Clinton centric post. If you don’t like it get your own spot on HA and have a repetitive shtick. Then it can focus on your favorite presidential candidate. Or whatever, I’ve tried to support all of the Democrats against bullshit, but this week has been mostly directed at Clinton (because she’s winning and because she’s a woman, I suspect).

* Andrew Sullivan really doesn’t like Hillary. I happen to prefer the political environment of the 1990’s to that of the Bush era.

* Anyhoo, she’s probably got girl cooties.

OK, not too Clintonie, that’s it.

* Mitt Romney is push polling himself.

* Fox News Porn banned by digg.

* I’m sure we totally have the resources to invade Pakistan.

* The new media laws seem to still be up in the air.

* Last year when the Republicans didn’t pass a budget, it didn’t have any earmarks. So the Republicans are good fiscal stewards.

Locally:

* Goldy touched on this, but Rick Ensey’s wife Diane is giving us pseudonymous bloggers a bad name.

* He also touched on this like two posts ago, but Dave Reichert‘s inability to do basic FEC reporting is the gift that keeps on giving.

* You may have missed it, but I guess there was a tax revolt in King County.

* I hope one day we can figure out what the anti-war protesters want.

If FCC chair Kevin Martin thought he could depress turnout at tonight’s public hearing on media consolidation by scheduling it with only five days notice, he shouldn’t have located it in Seattle. By 7PM, Town Hall’s 800-seat auditorium was comfortably full, with more people still streaming in. Even now, over three hours into the proceedings a large crowd remains, with many more people milling about downstairs. I think it a safe bet to estimate that over 1200 people will have come through the doors by the end of the night.

The audience is not only large, but extremely enthusiastic, and almost entirely opposed to the FCC’s proposed rules loosening limits on cross ownership and consolidation. It is also (gasp) bipartisan. The meeting opened with live statements from Gov. Chris Gregoire, AG Rob McKenna, state auditor Brian Sonntag, and KC councilmember Reagan Dunn, plus prerecorded statements from Sen. Maria Cantwell, Rep. Jay Inslee and Rep. Dave Reichert. Needless to say, all opposed the rule changes. A panel of speakers including Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen and KVI radio personality John Carlson also spoke to the commission, and again, overwhelmingly against the rules. Indeed, the only speakers the FCC could find to support further media consolidation were a handful of representatives from media companies that would benefit from the rule changes.

Meanwhile, over 251 audience members have already signed up for a two minute speaking slot — if everybody gets their turn we’ll be here for another eight hours! And of the dozens of concerned citizens who have already spoken, only one has argued in support of loosening ownership rules… my colleague and KTTH morning host, David Boze. (Talk about a brown nose. I sure hope that’s not what it takes to get ahead in today’s corporate-owned media, because if it is, I’m screwed.) Each speaker (except for Boze) has been thanked with loud and boisterous applause, a level of enthusiasm all the more amazing considering we all realize that the Republican majority on the FCC has already written the rules and made their decision, and that this whole hearing is little more than show.

I’m not sure how long I’ll stick around, but I’ll certainly post more later….

UPDATE (11:30PM):
I gotta admit, I couldn’t sit through the whole thing, so I went out for a drink, but I just got back, and it’s still going strong… maybe 200 people still sitting in the audience, more than seven hours later. Amazing. Over 280 concerned citizens signed up for their two minutes to speak, but they’re planning to shut things down at midnight. According to Andrew, who’s been live blogging the whole time, only a couple people have spoken in favor of loosening the ownership rules.

You can argue the merits of the proposed rule changes all you want, but one thing is absolutely clear from this FCC hearing… the public is overwhelmingly opposed. Nearly unanimously. This whole hearing may be a farce, but if so, the people here tonight are playing their roles with passion and verve.