Search Results for: Reichert

Netroots favorite Darcy Burner may yet face a challenger for the Democratic nomination in Washington’s 8th Congressional District, but she’s already reinforced her standing as the primary front runner, hiring Dan Kully of Laguens, Hamburger, Kully, Klose to produce TV and radio spots for her 2008 campaign.

And man does he work fast.

Widely acclaimed for his work on U.S. Sen. Jon Tester’s high profile win in Montana — including the memorable hair cut ad — Kully has become one of the hottest properties in the business. And, after an impressive, come-from-nowhere 2006 campaign that brought her within a couple points of the Republican incumbent, Burner found herself aggressively courted by some of the nation’s top media firms.

That Burner and Kully chose each other, says a lot about the kind of campaign we can expect to see in 2008. From this blogger’s perspective, it’s a “you got peanut butter in my chocolate” kinda fit.

Burner is likable, funny, quirky and damn smart — qualities that never fully came across in her well-produced but run-of-the-mill TV spots. Sure she’s young, and a bit of a geek, but those should be pluses in a district that’s home to Microsoft and many of our nation’s high tech leaders.

Kully’s genius is at communicating a candidate’s strengths, even if they’re not quite the strengths the inside the Beltway crowd typically focuses on. He’s creative, aggressive, incisive and not afraid to flout convention. And as a huge bonus, he’s local, heading up LHKK’s Seattle office. Not only does Kully know the region and the state — he did the highly effective media for the No campaigns that helped defeat I-912 (gas tax repeal) and I-933 (takings) — he’s geographically situated to give Burner the attention she needs as the campaign unfolds.

The spot above, the first fruit of the Burner/Kully collaboration, is a good indicator of where this campaign intends to go… and where it should have gone in the final months of the 2006 season. It is a parody of Dave Reichert’s derisively sexist “job interview” ad, and hits back hard at the congressman’s own poor performance in office. If Burner’s biggest perceived weakness is lack of experience in public office, it is also one of her greatest assets, especially with Reichert continuing to carry water for an unpopular President on many of our nation’s most pressing issues. Burner is put forth as an agent of change, a role for which political outsiders are particularly well suited.

The spot also displays a willingness to be as creative as the candidate, and that’s a welcome change from the focus-grouped messaging of the 2006 campaign, and the paint-by-numbers look-and-feel of its media.

Burner is in the process of putting together a team that should strike fear into the heart of Reichert’s handlers, and reason into the minds of potential Democratic challengers. Burner is also on track to come out of the quarter as one of the top candidates nationwide, but she’s still about $20,000 shy of her target. So if you want Burner to be the candidate in 2008, send a message now by sending her some money.

It’s gonna be a helluva a campaign.

Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA5) likes to pitch herself as a family values candidate. In fact, she values her family so much that she’s paid her brother and father almost $60,000 out of campaign funds over the past two elections. Sweet.

That’s according to a new report, “A Family Affair“, issued by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which found that 41 Democratic and 55 Republican representatives have put family members on their campaign payroll over the past three election cycles.

Although it is illegal for members of Congress to hire family members on their official staff, nothing stops them from paying them from campaign funds. So I guess it’s okay because, like, everybody’s doing it, right? Just take a look at the Washington state delegation, where Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Sheriff) paid his nephew Todd $4,281 out of campaign funds, and… um… well… that’s it, apparently. Just McMorris and Reichert.

Yeah, so when I ask for contributions to help pay for the enormous amount of time I put into this blog, I’m a deadbeat. But when McMorris’s father gets paid to work on his own daughter’s campaign, well, I guess he’s just being entrepreneurial.

I suppose that’s the difference between being a Democrat and a Republican.

This morning I thought I might write about the oil stain on my garage floor. Or, perhaps, the blue fuzzy lint I cleaned out of my navel this morning. But I was just a little too lazy to write on a topic of such irrelevance.

Besides, Alicia Mundy beat me to it this morning. In her Letter from Washington column in the Seattle Times, Alicia writes about Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-8)…and his utter irrelevance:

The annual power rankings from Congress.org have dropped Reichert, now a sophomore Republican, from 168th among 439 members to 419th. That puts him lower than emissaries from the District of Columbia (100), Guam (177) and Puerto Rico (377), none of whom represent a state or have actual voting rights in the House.

Reichert ranks lower than most Republicans, and every Democrat except Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA-2), who has been marginalized ever since the FBI filmed him taking bribes.

In short, Reichert has no recent accomplishments (well…he did successfully pretend to get a school bus driver fired). Furthermore he has shown no capacity to adapt—to find some kind of functional niche—in a House controlled by Democrats.

“But…but…but, what do you expect, Reichert is only a sophomore!” Sophomore, indeed…but, Reichert ranks 38th out of the 41 Representatives in his class of 2004.

So I guess Ms. Mundy was having one of those “I think I’ll write about something completely irrelevant” days, and she reported irrelevant old news about Washington’s 8th Congressional District’s irrelevant Representative.

If Ms. Mundy had been in the mood for a little more relevancy, she might have written about, say, sophomore Rep. McMorris Rogers (R-WA-5), with a ranking of 231 of 439, or 12th of 41 in the class of 2004 (and she spent the session pregnant until giving birth last month and missed much of May as a consequence).

Ms. Mundy could have done that…but, then again, McMorris Rogers doesn’t have that head of rich, silvery hair, bulging biceps, and those washboard abs….

See, this is why I’m really, really rooting for Rudy Giuliani to win the GOP nomination. In the words of Rev. James Dobson:

Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson’s – Dobson’s? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else.

Abortion, domestic partnerships, philandering, multiple marriages, dressing in drag… these are all reasons Dobson cites in asserting Giuliani is not “presidential timber.” And if Christian conservatives like Dobson can’t bring themselves to vote for the GOP nominee, many will stay home from the polls altogether, disadvantaging Republican candidates up and down the ticket. Democratic voters already tend to turn out in relatively greater numbers during presidential elections — imagine a close race in a rematch between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert, in which the right-wing Republican base is turned off by a Giuliani candidacy.

I sure as hell am.

Over a month ago, I said this about the race among Democrats to take on Reichert in the 8th CD:

Unlike Goldy, I’m not committed to supporting a single candidate. At least not yet.

Today, I announce that I will be supporting Darcy Burner for Congress.

Democrats need an energetic new voice in Washington. We need a voice from Seattle’s Eastside that will advocate for fiscal restraint and personal responsibility. We need someone who understands not only the high-tech businesses of Bellevue and Redmond, but also the VFW halls of Auburn and Buckley. Darcy Burner meets or exceeds all of these requirements.

While some folks question whether Darcy is the candidate who will lead Democrats to victory, I don’t. Darcy fell just 8,000 votes short of victory in 2006. In New Hampshire, Paul Hodes lost to Rep. Charlie Bass by 20 points in 2004. Two years later, Hodes won, 52-45. The truth is, Darcy is much closer to victory in ’08 than many candidates who are giving it second try.

Darcy Burner isn’t the anointed candidate; if there are challengers, she’ll have to beat them. If Dwight Pelz does what Paul Berendt did in 2004 by finding a celebrity candidate to run in the 8th, Darcy will have to beat that candidate, too. No one is owed a seat in Congress, or even a party’s nomination.

Darcy has learned much from her first campaign, and I see no reason why she can’t get another 10,000 votes somewhere in the 8th District.

“Disintermediation.” It’s a big word. Kinda wonky. One of those jargony terms sometimes used to make one feel smarter or better informed than one really is. Borrowed from the world of finance, the word more broadly describes the act of removing the middleman, or intermediary.

I just plain love the word. Especially when talking about the Internet and how it is changing the way people consume news and other information.

The other day I used the word “disintermediation” to kvell about Darcy Burner’s new Trail Mix videos, an online video diary the candidate is currently producing and editing herself. I wrote:

First the Internet enabled politicians to connect directly with voters, disintermediating the legacy press out of the equation. Now tech savvy politicians like Darcy Burner are attempting to use the Internet to connect directly with voters, disintermediating political advertising out of the equation… and the high-priced, professional media consultants who create it.

To which the Seattle Times’ David Postman responded:

We’ll see about that. The spots are refreshing and obviously something very different and much more personal than what we see in a campaign. But at this point they’re just sidelights. Burner worked closely in ’06 with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and her campaign showed plenty of signs of being shaped by “high-priced, professional media consultants.”

Self-produced YouTube ads in the spring before the election year are one thing. There are plenty of examples of creative use of the Internet in campaigning. But I’ve yet to see a major candidate commit to Goldstein’s “disintermediation” once they become serious contenders.

Hmm. I suppose I allowed my enthusiasm to get the best of my rhetoric, for I want to be clear that I am not for a moment suggesting that Darcy can or should entirely disintermediate the consultancy class any more than she can entirely disintermediate professional journalists. Postman is right that it is still quite early, and as we head into the heat of the contest Darcy’s campaign will surely take on a more traditional and “professional” look and feel.

So I am not advocating that Darcy entirely “commit” to disintermediation. I’m merely suggesting that she should not abandon it.

It is hard to be disappointed in Darcy’s amazing, come-from-nowhere, 2006 campaign… I mean, apart from the obvious fact that she didn’t win. But I share Postman’s take that her “personality was largely lost in some of the ads.” Her paid media may have been well produced, and the strategy entirely defensible in light of her number one perceived weakness — her youthful appearance and her supposed inexperience — but the end result is that few voters got to know the candidate as the smart, funny, wonky, passionate, personable, hard working, and occasionally quirky Darcy who us bloggers grew to know and love.

At the start of the campaign it was all about beating Reichert. By the end of the campaign I couldn’t imagine another person who I would rather have representing me in Congress.

That admittedly emotional attachment to a political candidate is not something one can create through a traditional campaign. The medium of 30-second TV spots won’t allow it, and the stodgy, solemn gatekeepers of the legacy press simply won’t permit it. Yet for all the usual complaints about our elections — the venal, nasty tone of the campaigns and the shallowness of our political dialogue — it is this failure to establish an emotional connection between the candidate and the voter, this lack of trust and affinity, that is the largest obstacle to conducting a real public debate.

For if you do not trust the candidate, if you cannot establish an emotional connection, then you can dismiss everything and anything they say as just another cynical, disingenuous, political sound bite. That in fact was the strategy of the Reichert campaign and the Times’ viciously dishonest editorial. And to some extent, it worked.

And that is why disintermediation is such an important tool, because it is the best means for candidates in large districts to directly reach a larger number of voters, and the only opportunity for some voters to truly get to know their candidates outside the reality distortion field generated by paid and earned media filters. What could be more honest than a campaign video filmed and edited by the candidate herself? Given the choice between that, and Frank Blethen’s opinion or an adman’s pitch, why would any voter want to choose one of the latter?

No, the vast majority of voters this cycle will not follow the election on YouTube, and so yes, Postman is somewhat right in describing these videos as a sort of sidelight to the real campaign. But in doing so I think he underestimates the collateral benefits of efforts such as these. Disintermediation does not replace traditional campaigning, it augments it, and in so doing, helps shape the way the traditional media shapes the public perception of the campaign itself.

In writing about Darcy’s homemade videos, Postman, arguably the most influential and widely read political writer in the state, is introducing these clips to a much broader audience than they might otherwise garner, and perhaps more importantly, finds himself covering Darcy within a context she chooses to define. Likewise, he is engaging HA — one of the WA progressive community’s premier tools of political disintermediation — in a dialogue about the notion of disintermediation itself.

I know… very meta. But it illustrates the point that disintermediation is not simply about removing the media middleman, it is about forcing the remaining middlemen to acknowledge the role they play, and to adjust their coverage accordingly.

The more people who get to know Darcy for who she truly is, the harder it becomes for a Kate Riley or a D.C. media consultant to caricature her one way or the other. And that’s good for both Darcy and the voters.

Could the Seattle Times editorial board be any more dense or dishonest? Well yeah, of course they could. But that sloppy, wet kiss they planted today on Rep. Dave Reichert’s manly punim is one humdinger of a premeditated prevarication.

The Times celebrates Reichert’s “independence” and congratulates him for speaking out in defense of ousted U.S. Attorney John McKay:

Reichert picked a good cause and a good time to push back on a White House that clearly blew it by firing McKay.

No doubt it’s a good cause and a shrewd (if obvious) piece of political maneuvering. But a “good time”…? Um… wouldn’t a better time to have displayed his “conscience-driven independence” have been way back in December… when McKay was fired?

Let’s look at the time line here. We heard nothing but crickets chirping from Reichert when news of McKay’s ouster broke back in December, and when Reichert was asked to submit candidates for the office, McKay’s name was noticeably absent from the list. Wouldn’t that have been the “occasion where sticking his neck out really counts”…?

It is not until months later, with the scandal threatening to take down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and drag our nation into a constitutional crisis, that Reichert finally sticks up for McKay. And even then, he didn’t actually submit McKay’s name for consideration, or formally request he be reinstated. No, he just made a statement to a reporter.

Not exactly a profile in courage.

The only thing accurate about the Times editorial is the headline: “Reichert reacts.” A real leader — a real independent — would have been proactive in defense of John McKay and our justice system, instead of sticking his finger in the political winds and spitting out a sound bite after the fact.

As a junior member of the minority party, and the 419th most powerful congressman in the U.S. House, Rep. Dave Reichert has a lot more opportunity these days to exercise his mighty biceps than he does his puny political influence. So on those few occasions when he is given the chance to play a role in current events, it is instructive to see what he does with it.

With the U.S. attorneys scandal metastasizing around him, the task of recommending John McKay’s replacement fell squarely on Reichert’s broad shoulders, and he responded with the kind of bold competence we’ve come to expect from the brawny “Sheriff” who had Gary Ridgeway firmly in his grasp, but on a hunch, let him continue murdering women for another 18 years. I’ve already remarked on the candidate at the top of the list, former congressman Rick White, a lapsed bankruptcy attorney with little courtroom and zero prosecutorial experience. Sure, he isn’t even eligible to practice law in Washington state (or, um, anywhere,) but he’s a loyal Republican, and that’s really all that counts, huh?

Now attention is turning to another of Reichert’s nominees, acting U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan, McKay’s number two, and the former longtime Yakima County Prosecutor. Scuttlebutt is that Sullivan would be the safe choice — an experienced prosecutor, (again) a loyal, machine Republican… and a man who once referred to undocumented immigrants back in Yakima as “wetbacks.”

Hmm. I wonder how that racial slur goes over with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?

By all accounts, Sullivan has his supporters in WA’s legal community, but he has his detractors as well. He is widely disliked in the Yakima Nation for aggressively fighting their efforts to battle alcoholism by taxing or banning alcohol on their reservation. And victim-advocacy groups still cringe at a policy he started in 1979, that required rape victims to take lie-detector tests.

And while he can boast three decades of prosecutorial experience, Sullivan’s very last case as Yakima County Prosecutor didn’t go so well:

In a blistering decision, a Yakima County Superior Court judge has accused the county prosecutor’s office of misconduct and dismissed a murder-conspiracy case it was hoping to try a second time.

[…] “The state’s misconduct prejudiced the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel,” Judge Susan Hahn wrote in her ruling.

But then, a prosecutor admonished from the bench for withholding evidence from the defense might be exactly the kind of “team player” the White House is looking for.

And then there’s Reichert’s third nominee, Mike Vaska. An experienced litigator and prosecutor widely respected on both sides of the aisle, Vasca ruffled party feathers by challenging the annointed Rob McKenna in the 2004 GOP Attorney General primary. He doesn’t stand a chance.

It wouldn’t surprise me if none of Reichert’s three candidates gets the job. Nice work Dave.

I have an email correspondence going on with AG Rob McKenna’s office on a number of questions regarding former U.S. Attorney John McKay, and what if any role McKenna might have played in both the dismissal and the search for a replacement. McKenna’s communications people are good. Their response was prompt, concise and deftly worded in a way that does not exactly provide a direct answer to some of my questions. I’ll report back after they reply to my follow-up.

To be fair, McKenna was heading out to Montesano and Grays Harbor this morning, so my answers were provided secondhand by Communications Director Janelle Guthrie. But she did manage to offer one direct quote from her boss:

“We had a good relationship with John McKay. He was an excellent attorney, highly respected by other prosecutors as well. I think President Bush made a mistake.”

Hmm. I didn’t actually ask what McKenna thought about McKay’s job performance or President Bush’s decision to fire him, so the fact that he chose to offer his opinion unprompted is telling. (Not to mention a display of political savvy that is apparently beyond the reach of fellow Republican Dave Reichert.) For by publicly defending McKay and criticizing Bush, McKenna would appear to be separating himself from both the widening scandal, and the slow-motion implosion of the Bush administration itself.

But taken at his word, his statement also does something else that I hope levelheaded voters will take to heart: it hammers yet another nail in the coffin of the oft-repeated GOP meme that Democrats somehow stole the 2004 gubernatorial election.

As the New York Times points out in an editorial today, “phony fraud charges” were at the center of the U.S. attorney firings:

In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud.

[…] John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor’s race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. “There was no evidence,” he said, “and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.”

So if McKenna, fully aware of McKay’s public comments, is now vouching for McKay’s performance and criticizing his firing… isn’t he also vouching for the integrity of the 2004 gubernatorial election?

McKay refused to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury, which is of course exactly what many Republicans wanted him to do. That is what the EFF’s Bob Williams and the BIAW’s Tom McCabe angrily demanded. That is what all six Republicans on the King County Council demanded when they wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. That is what our friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics continues to demand today. When then-WSRP Chair Chris Vance describes speaking with McKay and complaining to the White House, he appears incredulous that good Republicans wouldn’t subvert our supposedly impartial judicial system for partisan political purposes:

“We had a Republican secretary of state, a Republican prosecutor in King County and a Republican U.S. attorney, and no one was doing anything.”

Not to mention a Republican state Attorney General, Rob McKenna. In 2004 the entire investigative, prosecutorial and administrative apparatus was controlled by loyal Republicans, and yet there were no indictments, there were no prosecutions, and there were no grand juries. Why? For the same reason a cherry-picked judge in a Republican county dismissed “with prejudice” all allegations of fraud: there was no evidence.

I believe a sort of mass psychosis set in to our state’s Republican establishment in the wake of Dino Rossi’s incredibly close and understandably frustrating loss to Gov. Chris Gregoire — a mindset of dark thoughts in which party stalwarts cynically determined that absolutely everything and anything was possible at the hands of their enemies across the aisle… and that absolutely everything and anything was permissible in response. Fed by the paranoid fantasies of the right-wing blogs, and the ruthless partisanship of the BIAW and EFF, the state GOP not only pursued a hopeless legal contest, but set in motion a series of events that ultimately led to McKay’s firing. The WSRP made the biggest political mistake possible — it came to believe its own propaganda — and in so doing played a major role in instigating a national scandal that threatens Gonzales himself, and further tarnishes the Republican brand.

“President Bush made a mistake.” Absolutely, and in more ways than one. It remains to be seen if McKenna’s efforts to separate himself from this mistake after the fact are entirely supported by the record of his own actions and statements at the time.

One of the arguments we repeatedly made during the late stages of the 2006 midterm election was that with Dems poised to take over the House, the region would be better served by a freshman Darcy Burner in the majority than a two-term Dave Reichert in the minority. Well that thesis was just neatly illustrated by Congress.org’s annual Congressional Power Rankings, which show The Sheriff dropping from a ranking of 166 in 2006 to a pathetic 419 in 2007.

That’s right, there are only handful of representatives with less power than Reichert, which if you look at his Power Point Breakdown, is mostly due to the fact that he scores giant goose-eggs for both Influence and Legislation. By comparison, his fellow WA Republican Cathy McMorris, who also arrived in Congress in the class of 2004, manages to maintain a more respectable ranking of 231.

In cynically concluding their unmitigated, lying load of bullshit endorsement of Reichert, the Seattle Times wrote:

“His goal should be to expand his influence and be a stronger voice for change.”

Hey Frank… how’s that working out for you?

It’s a busy lineup tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: Run Darcy, run!
On Friday, Darcy Burner officially filed to take a second shot at Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Sheriff) in WA’s 8th Congressional District, and tonight she joins me on the show to explain why. What are we likely to see from Burner for Congress v2.0? Give us a call and ask Darcy yourself.

8PM: The Patty & Joel Show
Sen. Patty Murray calls in at the top of the hour with the latest on the Walter Reed Hospital scandal, and the conditions at Madigan Army Medical Center at Fort Lewis. Then Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly joins me in the studio for the remainder of the hour to talk about local and national politics, and I suppose, what Sen. Murray had to say.

9PM: TBA
Tunnel vs. Sonics, Halliburton moves to Dubai, hate-mail highlights and other rantable topics.

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

(note: this is my two cents on Goldy’s earlier post)

I hope Ross Hunter runs for Congress. I’m guessing that Darcy Burner will give it another shot, too [UPDATE BELOW]. Tony Ventrella is already saddled-up and on the trail. Unlike Goldy, I’m not committed to supporting a single candidate. At least not yet.

I think Ventrella is going to have to really earn the support of Democrats. Being a celebrity is not enough to win. Hunter has the resume, but is a “moderate” guy like him going to “fire up” liberal suburban Democrats while reaching out to “guns and butter” conservative Democrats? Does Burner even want to run again, considering her biggest opponent wasn’t even Reichert, but the lying-sack-of-shit Seattle Times editorial page?

I’m excited to see how this thing plays out. It seems all the big shots are lining up behind Hunter, with Andrew and Goldy (and more) with Burner. Tony Ventrella… well, what about Tony? Come to Drinking Liberally, Tony!

In other news, the GOP has a 2-to-1 “precinct committee officer” advantage in the 8th Congressional District. Perhaps this might be more important than the horse race stuff.

UPDATE:
Darcy’s in, according to Postman.

It seems like the 2006 race just ended, and already the Democratic field is coming together to take on Rep. Dave Reichert in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

I ran into Tony Ventrella last night at Chocolate for Choice, and immediately asked him if he was really running for Congress in WA-08, and he gave the kind of definitive, confident reply a real candidate is supposed to give: “All the way through November, and beyond,” he insisted. Well, he’s got that part down pat.

Yesterday was also the day DraftRossHunter.org kicked off an effort to draft state Rep. Ross Hunter (D-Bellevue) for a run against Reichert. I suppose calling it a “Draft” campaign might suggest to some an aura of grassroots activism, but I’m told it is largely the initiative of King County Democrats Finance Chair Sharon Mast. Ross was informed of the effort, and didn’t object, but said he couldn’t deal with it until after the session. When asked for his biographical information, Hunter pointed Mast to his consultants at Moxie Media, who gave her what she needed. It’s not exactly grassroots provenance — and there’s nothing wrong with that — but it certainly doesn’t represent a broader movement.

Also at Chocolate for Choice last night was the 2006 Democratic nominee, Darcy Burner, and like the experienced politician she’s become, she would neither confirm nor deny her candidacy for a second run at “the Sheriff”. (A self-designation Reichert reminds us at the start of nearly every sentence, as in: “If I can look Gary Ridgeway straight in the eyes, I can look you in the eyes and tell you that I want a tall, double-shot, low-fat latte.”)

So where does that leave us? Perhaps my allegiance is showing, but if I were a betting man, I’d guess Darcy will run. And if Burner runs, I’m pretty damn confident we’ll be looking at a Reichert/Burner rematch in 2008.

Tony’s a nice guy and all, and from our brief conversation it sounds like his politics are a good match for the district, but I’m not sure he fully groks the immense amount of hard work and begging fundraising required to make a viable run. Sure, he’s the only one of the three who can go on Dori’s show without being totally trashed, but Dori isn’t exactly known as a Democratic primary kingmaker. There is a finite reservoir of political dollars, and the unfortunate reality is that money in the bank is the primary yard stick by which donors judge political viability. Sometimes newcomers surprise you (ie, Darcy’s $3 million-plus in 2006), but I’m guessing Tony will be out of the running by this time next year, if not sooner.

As a several term legislator, Ross is the most experienced politician of the three, and if he had run for the nomination in 2006, he might have kicked Darcy’s ass. But this ain’t 2006.

After running an insurgent, come-from-nowhere campaign that raised unprecedented money, and coming within a few thousand votes of an incumbent despite the more than $6 million spent against her, Darcy is undoubtedly the frontrunner, and by far. Darcy has the advantage over Tony and Ross in almost every category: she has the district-wide name ID, the media exposure, the volunteers, the professional organization, and perhaps most importantly, the fundraising list. She also has the advantage of having been thoroughly vetted, with no skeletons exposed, despite the best efforts of Karl Rove and his evil minions.

And finally, Darcy not only has the support, but the love and respect of the netroots, a growing political force that only began to flex its muscles in 2006. If Darcy runs, she will have the bloggers on her side, almost to a one.

Nothing against Tony or Ross. I like both of them. But that’s just the way it is.

As for the general election I remain confident that the Democrats have a decent shot at unseating Reichert regardless of the nominee. The political landscape should remain tilted towards the D’s in a district that is growing bluer year by year, and Reichert won’t have a majority party leadership to puff up his profile during an election year. A presidential election will also greatly increase Democratic turnout in a district that has gone strongly Democratic the past few presidential elections.

And while the conventional wisdom is that Reichert should be harder to knock off now that he’s established in a second term, Darcy’s prospects are also buoyed by a pattern of challengers winning on their second try. Melissa Bean, Brian Baird, Stephanie Herseth, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Boyda, Joe Donnelly and others are all candidates who built on their first campaigns to come back and win the second time out. And knowing what I know about Darcy, how dedicated, hard-working, and most of all, how incredibly smart she is, I’m confident that she has what it takes to learn from her mistakes, and come back and win.

All she has to do is tell us she’s running, and the race is on.

There, I said it.

President Bush is a gift to the Democratic Party. When he leaves office in 2009, Democrats have the chance to send at least four new Senators to DC. States MN, OR, ME and NH have vulnerable incumbents. Colorado is an open seat in a state which is trending blue. Hell, even Virginia, Kentucky, or even Mississippi could break our way.

In the House, Democrats are poised to hold seats won in ’06, while expanding their majority. Even the functionally retarded Sheriff Reichert is keeping his head down. This must be why, on the Eastside, you’re more likely to see the Zodiac Killer in public than Dave Reichert.

I understand why some of my Democratic friends are excited about impeachment, even if it’s all but impossible to do. Folks are pissed, and they want justice, Sergio Leone-style. But handing the GOP a stick to bash you with ain’t smart politics.

Besides, for the last six years, it’s been all about George W. Bush. Now that we’ve got Congress, it ought to be about the American people.

Just sayin’.

What…? The recent firings of eight U.S. attorney’s may have been politically motivated?

The Justice Department said today that Republican Sen. Pete Domenici called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his deputy four times to complain about a U.S. attorney who claims he was fired for not rushing a corruption probe.

Hmm. I wonder if any Washington state Republicans complained to the Justice Department about John McKay? Cathy McMorris? Dave Reichert? You’d think maybe the local media might be a little more curious about the circumstances regarding McKay’s firing. But then, you know, this is just the sort of hardball politics we’ve come to expect from the GOP, so I guess it really wouldn’t be news.

UPDATE:
McKay in his own words, over on BlatherWatch.