Search Results for: Reichert

I am not afraid, I’ve had people point guns at me.
— Rep. Dave Reichert

“He desecrated the victims. The public ought to know that.” Tomas Guillen is describing Republican 8th District Congressman Dave Reichert and his manipulation of the Green River murder investigation and the arrest of Gary Ridgway to climb up into party politics.

Guillen’s no political firebrand, he’s a respected Seattle University journalism and criminal justice professor. But as a Seattle Times reporter, he covered the Green River story from its beginnings and has written two books on the subject.

His academic text, Serial Killers: Issues Explored Through the Green River Murders, and Ridgway attorney Mark Prothero’s Defending Gary, both written after Reichert’s 2004 election, tell a starkly different story than does Reichert’s ghost-written autohagiography, Chasing the Devil, My Twenty-Year Quest to Capture the Green River Killer.

Reichert’s record as sheriff was exposed in last week’s devastating reporting by the P-I’s Lewis Kamb who found plenty of former colleagues who’d reveal him to be “an ambitious self-promoter, an inexperienced manager prone to poor decisions, even a close-minded detective more obstacle than asset to a serial murder investigation.”

Reichert refused to be interviewed in person for the P-I’s piece, preferring to answer the reporter’s questions in writing. He did not return our attempts at contact.

(The written material, and people we’ve talked to use some strong adjectives to describe the former Sheriff’s professional behavior: manipulative, self-serving, amateurish, ambitious, creepy, bungling, inappropriate, opportunistic, egotistical, voyeuristic, and stubborn. These are quite different from the descriptives we’ve been hearing for years: heroic, gracious, sensitive, muscular, chivalrous, well-mannered, brave, clean and reverent. You decide).

Sheriff Reichert became the public face of the sensational arrest of the serial killer by elbowing his way in front of the cameras on November 30, 2000 when the sensational collar was announced.

Everyone knows Reichert is the guy who caught the Green River killer- Why? Because he reminds us in every introduction; every speech, interview, and on his website.

It helped get him elected in 2004 in his race against KIRO radio host, Dave Ross; and he still flogs it every time he opens his mouth in his race against Darcy Burner.

Recently, on KUOW’s Weekday with Steve Scher, (in a rare appearance in a venue where he might be seriously questioned) he referenced serial killers no fewer than three times in one hour on the local NPR talk show despite being asked no questions on the subject by Scher, who’s unused to politicians who drop blood instead of names.

Here’s an example: Why is Reichert against abortion? He told a interviewer recently, “I have a great respect for life. I’ve seen a lot of death in my career, worked Green River, seen lots of dead bodies.”

Back in Washington, the Honorable Mr. Reichert is known as the Man from Green River- his longest speech on the House floor during his lackluster first term was about “capturing” Gary Ridgway.

The release of Chasing the Devil, in late July, 2004 was exquisitely synched-up with his primary campaign which was a difficult one with a crowded Republican field anxious to replace the retiring Jennifer Dunn.

Bolstered by both his publisher’s marketing and his own political campaign, it was a perfect PR storm. Reichert’s face was thrust onto the front pages of local papers. He was interviewed on CNN and Court TV in full dress uniform (and every hair present and accounted for) talking about “capturing” the killer.

“Reichert used the serial murder case to move forward,” Guillen told BlatherWatch. “It was a travesty.” Photos released when Ridgway was arrested show Reichert in a suit posing in the bottom of a ravine near the Des Moines Highway.

“He used the grave site of a murder victim for personal ambition,” he says.

Meanwhile, his opponents, Bellevue Councilman Conrad Lee, State Sen. Luke Esser and (now GOP State Chairman) Diane Tebelius were lucky if they made page B-1 with their little coffee klatches, blah-blah press releases, and cheesy meet & greets.

(Chasing the Devil was neither a literary nor a popular success. P-I books critic, John Marshall wrote that Reichert painted himself as “muscular, charismatic, devoutly Christian, a dogged mix of Dudley Do-Right and the Lone Ranger.” Not exactly a bestseller: you can now buy a like new copy on Amazon for $1.74.)

Although otherwise a failure, his book as a political instrument was inspired. Media was flooded with pictures of the sheriff in a hunky muscle shirt sifting for bones at a body dump site, or in full Sheriffian regalia sternly leaning into and staring down the cowering serial killer from across a table. Reichert won the primary easily and got a tremendous knee-up in the November election.

(There’s his hair. It’s magnificent. Dave Ross told us: “He’s got great hair, he’s acknowledged he’s got great hair.” He’s known in legal circles as “Sheriff Hairspray.” [Reichert’s hair]… is always ready for the next photo opportunity,” says Prothero).

“My standing orders were that we were going to campaign on issues,” says Dave Ross. “Rumors I got about Dave or the Green River killer or the release of the book- we weren’t going to touch them.”

But there’s more than a little resume inflation going on in Chasing the Devil. There’s some obfuscatin’. Reichert had been “lead detective” in 1982 as the first bodies surfaced in and around the Green River. His book, however, would let you believe he held the title until 1990, never mentioning that several other detectives led in later murders.

The book is more than three quarters done before he makes passing reference to the fact that the task force had commanders over the “lead detectives.” Former Detective Bob Keppel told the P-I, Reichert was “one detective among many,” and never led discussions about the direction of the task force as a true leader would have.

Actually, he had little to do with the investigation having left the task force in 1990 to climb the bureaucratic ladder in the Sheriff’s Department. What’s more, these new accounts show how Reichert’s tremendous ego was responsible for early police blunders that stalled the investigation and let Gary Ridgway continue killing for decades.

But great hair or not, “He got elected based on Green River, when in fact, he didn’t solve it and he didn’t win against Gary Ridgway,” says Guillen.”

The fact is: technology caught the killer, not Detective Reichert’s dogged shoe-leather sleuthing as his press so dramatically implies. Even then, on Sheriff Reichert’s watch, the saliva sample that could have busted Ridgway as early as 1996 when the DNA technology became available, was not tested until 2001.

Women died in that interim.
~
Read It’s the Green River, Stupid: Part 2, the really creepy parts here.

The Seahawks are off today and I’m back with a vengeance, so strap on your helmut and get ready to butt heads with me on an action-packed “The David Goldstein Show” tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: Is the Republican Party in the midst of major meltdown? University of Maryland associate professor of political science Thomas Schaller joins me to discuss the latest developments in the Mark Foley House Page scandal, and the impact it is having on Capitol Hill and in congressional races nationwide. Schaller’s just released new book, “Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South” seems downright prescient in light the suddenly competitive races in WA-05, ID-01 and other supposed Republican strongholds in the rural West.

8PM: Peace activist Cindy Sheehan joins me to talk about her new book, “Peace Mom: A Mother’s Journey through Heartache to Activism.” Sheehan’s dramatic month-long vigil outside President Bush’s “ranch” in Crawford, TX transformed her from a grieving mom into the symbol of a nascent anti-war movement, ultimately focusing national attention on the moral implications of our war in Iraq. Sheehan is one of those unusual figures who generates both heartfelt praise and sometimes vicious, hateful criticism. If you’ve got a question for the controversial activist, here’s your chance.

9PM: Lock your desk drawers KIRO colleagues, for local radio’s most hated snoop is in the building! Michael Hood of the much-despised, inside-radio blog blatherWatch will join me in the studio… but we won’t be engaging in any radio industry rumor mongering. Instead we’ll be discussing Rep. Dave Reichert, and his undeserved, self-inflated, law enforcement reputation. Fresh on the heals of the Seattle P-I’s excellent exploration of Reichert’s record in the King County Sheriff’s department, Hood will give us a sneak peak at his long awaited expose on “The Sheriff’s” real role in catching the Green River Killer.

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

President Bush’s approval ratings are plummeting across the board, with the latest Newsweek poll dropping 3 points to a pathetic 33 percent. Meanwhile, the Democrat’s generic advantage in the race for control of Congress has climbed to a three-month high, with Dems now preferred on every major issue, including the war on terror. And of course the House Page scandal continues to spin out of control, with new revelations about Foley’s follies and the multi-year coverup coming out daily.

If you don’t think national events are having an impact on local races, then you’re spending too much time talking to Diane Tebelius. The last three public polls in WA’s 8th Congressional District (all conducted before the Foley scandal broke) have shown a dead heat between incumbent Republican Dave Reichert and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner, while the Reichert campaign remains suspiciously silent about its own internal polling. In light of this and the larger political climate, the respected Cook Political Report has just upgraded the race from “Lean Republican” to “Toss Up.”

Meanwhile, the WA-05 race between incumbent Republican Cathy McMorris and Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark is starting to turn some heads. On Friday the campaign released its own poll showing the race within the margin of error, while again, the McMorris campaign remained quiet about its own internal numbers. I’ve talked to a number of Democratic and Republican politicos over the past few days, and the unanimous consensus is that Goldmark is closing… and fast. The combination of a dynamic candidate, an effective advertising campaign, a solid ground game — and of course, a favorable political climate — is setting the stage for what could be one of the biggest upsets of the season.

What we’re seeing is a Republican Party in the midst of meltdown, and the impact is being felt in local districts nationwide. Yesterday, the Spokesman-Review endorsed Democrat Larry Grant in Idaho’s 1st CD, and while their stated reasons were varied, the final sentence stands out as a warning beacon of a potential political sea change:

Not only will Grant be in a good position to help Idaho if the Democrats regain the House, but he would work better with Republicans than Sali would if they don’t.

This is a rationale that will pop up in editorials nationwide. Absentee ballots start dropping a week from Tuesday, and barring some kind of October Surprise (or massive election fraud) a Democratic takeover of at least one house seems almost certain. While I don’t expect the S-R editorial board to apply the same logic to their home district, some voters will, recognizing that a populist pragmatist like Goldmark can better represent their interests in a Democratic majority than a socially conservative McMorris can in a Republican minority. We’ve reached a tipping point.

That said, Goldmark is still the underdog; he can’t win unless he can afford to get his message out… and he can’t afford to get his message out without your help. Friday I challenged my readers to take my Act Blue page past the $7,000 mark for Goldmark by the end of the weekend, and right now we’re still about $700 short. We’ve got a unique opportunity to put a Democrat in the 5th CD seat — the kind of Democrat that can hold the seat for years to come. So if you haven’t already given, please give now.

Oh man, it’s been a brutal media day for the candidates at the top of WA’s Republican ticket. But while the shiny-haired Dave Reichert is only getting his tires ass kicked in the local press (more on that later,) US Senate wannabe Mike?™ McGavick’s well-deserved beating is taking place on a national stage.

McGavick was absolutely savaged in the Washington Post this morning, subjected to the kind of blunt analysis and verbal thrashing only the deliciously acerbic Michael Kinsley can deliver:

If you knew nothing about Mike McGavick except what is in his TV commercials and on his Web site, you would conclude either that he is a moron or that he thinks you are a moron.

Hmm. I’m betting on the latter.

Kinsley deconstructs the McGavick campaign with devastating efficiency, highlighting the inane absurdities and “fog of generality” through which the candidate has chosen to present himself to voters. McGavick accuses Sen. Maria Cantwell of “following party over state interests.” To which Kinsley asks the obvious:

Why would she do that? Why would she put her party’s interests over those of her constituents? Who cares enough about either party to actually put their own political futures in peril? Answer: no one. Taken literally, the charge is absurd. But it’s not meant to be taken literally. It is just part of the miasma of themes and images that political professionals create around candidates. Cantwell is popular, partisanship is not. So blame partisanship and not Cantwell. Be for “families.” Be for “change.” Be against “Washington, D.C.” and “lobbyists.”

[…]

In a radio spot this week called “Not Paying Attention,” McGavick says, “Folks in Washington, D.C., you know they must not think we are paying attention” to “some of the things they are getting away with.” In a rare particular, he blames “automatic pay raises” for creating bad incentives for members of Congress. “We’ve got to have change,” he says, “but the only way to do that is to change who represents us.”

Maria Cantwell hit it big in the dot-com boom and is a very rich woman. She has spent tens of millions of dollars on her election and reelection campaigns. Whatever her flaws, she cannot possibly care about a pay raise. Taken literally, the notion that any national politician assumes that the voters and media and opposition party are “not paying attention” is equally ridiculous. So what is her motivation? What is McGavick’s, for that matter? (He’s rich, too, having struck gold in just a few years in the insurance business.)

Following up on McGavick’s charges, Kinsley logically asks, “Is Cantwell devoting her life to betraying the families of Washington just for the fun it?”

McGavick has no explanation, except to say that “this stuff is nuts,” that it is “partisan nonsense” and so on. But Maria Cantwell is not nuts. “Nuts” is not a plausible explanation. And without any specifics or a plausible explanation, McGavick’s complaints are exceptionally empty.

Knowing virtually nothing about McGavick, I saw one of his 30-second spots last week and took an instant, personal and possibly unfair dislike to him. And I wonder why everyone doesn’t have the same reaction to these patronizing, insulting commercials. Maybe some do — McGavick is going to lose, apparently — but more must be turned on than are turned off, because McGavick is not nuts either.

Of course we all know why McGavick hides himself behind a fog of generalities — because if he actually ran on the issues, he’d surely lose. This has never been more clear than in his recent spat with the Seattle Times’ David Postman over a months-old post about McGavick’s stance on social security privatization. McGavick didn’t dispute Postman’s reporting at the time. In fact, he even cited it from his own campaign website. Only after Democrats started citing the post did McGavick claim that Postman got it wrong.

As it turns out, Postman’s interview was somewhat prompted by a contest on Talking Points Memo seeking to get a straight answer from McGavick on whether he did or did not support phasing out Social Security and replacing it with private accounts. So it’s no surprise that TPM’s Josh Marshall chose to weigh in on the current dispute:

And now he says Cantwell has to take down her ad because it doesn’t reflect his true position. At least after changing it for the tenth time. Can anyone take this dude even remotely seriously? And how am I supposed to run Social Security contests with any sense of predictability or finality when we’ve got serial bamboozlers like Mike McGavick out there constantly changing their positions?

I need Regis here to give McGavick one of those, “Is that your final answer?” lines.

(ed.note: In private McGavick is known for supporting hardline privatization of Social Security. He just fibs about his position in public.)

Late Update: Maybe give a holler to the Postman guy at the Seattle Times and thank him for braving the hot swamps of McGavick’s bamboozlement.

Hey… thanks Dave.

And thanks Mike, for transforming a Senate race widely touted as the Republicans best shot at unseating an incumbent Democrat… into a national joke. No wonder McGavick recently traveled to a big DC fundraiser only to come back empty handed.

From Talking Points Memo:

Okay, we’ve got an answer for Rep. Dave Reichert [R] of Washington’s 8th district. He says he doesn’t want to take a stand on Hastert until after an investigation has been completed.

Pussy.

A SurveyUSA/KING-5 poll to be released later today will show incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert leading Democratic challenger Darcy Burner 50% to 48%… well within SurveyUSA’s typical margin error. This will mark the third independent poll over the past two weeks (here and here) to show the race in a statistical dead heat.

That’s amazing news for a challenger who is still under 50% in name ID, and bad news for an incumbent six weeks prior to the election. This isn’t 2004. This is an incumbent with huge name ID in a district that has never elected a Democrat, running against a virtual unknown.

Want to put Burner over the top? Then please give her money now. Your contribution could make the difference between Democratic and Republican control of the House. Really.

UPDATE:
“KING 5 Poll shows 8th district up for grabs”

8th Congressional District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has run two ads so far, and both feature her family’s history of military service. Both her father and husband have served in the military, and one of her brothers participated in the initial invasion of Iraq.

I’ve heard some criticism from Reichert boosters that this won’t play in her district… that the service of her family members won’t give Burner the credibility she seeks. But I think these critics are wrong. Every soldier we send overseas leaves a spouse and children and parents and siblings behind. There are many more voters in the 8th District who share Burner’s experience than there are who served in combat. Burner understands the incredible burden this war places on military families, because she comes from one.

Curiously, Burner rarely talks about her own service — the years she spent in the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) — even though it was obviously an enormously influential period of her life. Burner started at age 14 and quickly rose through the cadet ranks, becoming the executive officer of the Nebraska wing at age 16, and being named National Cadet of the Year in 1989.

Darryl of Hominid Views was intrigued by this biographical tidbit and has posted a fascinating and candid interview with Burner on the subject. It soon becomes clear that when Republicans criticize her lack of service or leadership experience, they are shooting blanks; Burner displayed extraordinary leadership at a very early age, and it is this experience that gave her many of the skills that have helped her succeed throughout her life.

Her military family background and CAP experience has also given her perspective on politics that I believe explains much of her appeal in a swing district like the 8th:

Most of the members of the Civil Air Patrol that I know are relatively conservative politically

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Reliable sources tell me that a poll commissioned by EMILY’s List will show the race between Rep. Dave Reichert and Republican challenger Darcy Burner at 44% to 43%. They didn’t tell me who got the 44 and who got the 43, but it doesn’t really matter, as either way it’s a statistical dead heat.

The poll will be released tomorrow, and was reportedly conducted by a widely respected polling firm.

Sound unlikely? Well keep in mind that this comes on the heels of a widely pooh-poohed poll two weeks ago that showed Burner leading 49% to 46%. Assuming my sources are correct, we now have two independent polls, two weeks apart, that peg this race within the margin of error. That’s not a good place for an incumbent to be six weeks before the election.

UPDATE:
Oops. Looks like Lynn at Evergreen Politics beat me to it… and with independent confirmation straight from EMILY’s list. She says it’ll be in the P-I tomorrow morning, which means it will likely be up online within the hour.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Got the details. Here’s the polling memo from EMILY’s List.

Hmm. According to PoliticalMoneyLine, as of the end of August, Darcy Burner had actually outraised Dave Reichert in contributions from individuals, $1,084,864 to $1,083,538. And I’m not just talking about the last three quarters… I’m talking over the entire campaign.

That means Reichert’s fundraising advantage comes almost entirely from PACs… and I just think that says something about which candidate has the most grassroots support, and who the candidates might be beholden to: business interests (Reichert) or the people (Burner).

And according to Evergreen Politics and Cool Aqua, the disparity in popular support between the two campaigns as evidenced by the willingness of ordinary people to open their checkbooks has only grown in recent weeks. FEC reports suggest that Reichert may have raised only $3000.00 from GOP evil-mastermind Karl Rove’s recent visit. While part of that poor showing may be due to reporting errata or the fact that most people attending the event had already maxed out, it’s unlikely he came close to raising the $156,000 Burner brought in during a 10-day special fundraising drive promoted to offset Rove’s presence, or even the $43,000 an email from Sen. Maria Cantwell raised in only a few hours.

It’s not that congressional campaigns are simply about the money, or that dollars raised is ever a reliable predictor of ballots cast… but the relative easy in which Burner has raised money from individuals can certainly be read as an indicator of a growing Burner surge.

UPDATE:
I just checked my ActBlue page, and Darcy Burner is sitting there at a total of $99,941.32 raised… and it’s just killing me. Somebody… quick.. make a $60.00 donation and put Darcy over the $100,000 mark.

“Burner Wins!” If Washington’s 8th Congressional District primary had the same rules as a judicial primary, that might be the headline splashed across the top of the Seattle Times and P-I this morning.

Of course the totals are extremely close, and far from complete, so when the final numbers are in Rep. Dave Reichert may turn out to have tallied more primary votes than Democratic challenger Darcy Burner, but what we’ve seen so far should have 8th CD R’s very worried. As of the last report Burner has received 19,529 primary votes compared to Reichert’s 19,133. Both candidates ran unopposed, and while primary results can be misleading, these results are a classic sign of a vulnerable incumbent.

Perhaps most encouraging (or distressing, depending on your party affiliation) is Burner’s performance in Pierce County, where Democrat Dave Ross got trounced in 2004. At the moment Reichert is only leading by a 6,699 to 6,424 margin. If Burner can keep the race close in the Southern part of the district come November, she’s virtually assured victory.

Remember, Burner went into this race with zero name recognition against one of the best known politicians in the region, and has spent very little money thus far getting her name and face in front of voters. Barring disastrous polls (and the Reichert camp’s silence on their own internal polling indicates there aren’t any) Burner can cash in her performance yesterday to assure that the DCCC follows through on the substantial financial support it has already committed.

Any way you look at it, the primary results represent a big win for Darcy Burner.

After months of silence, Rep. Dave Reichert has finally issued a statement regarding reports of mismanagement of the King County Sheriff’s department under his watch:

Reichert’s statement said some of his own efforts to improve officer supervision and oversight were stymied by a lack of support from other county officials. In particular, Reichert mentioned King County Executive Ron Sims.

“I worked as sheriff to address these issues and others but was often prohibited from doing so by successive years of $1 million to $2 million budget cuts,” Reichert said. “I repeatedly expressed to the county executive the need for an increased budget to effectively implement oversight of the behavior of the organization, to ensure policies and procedures are complied with and to create an ongoing auditing process in the Sheriff’s Office.”

What a load of crap. Reichert never had to deal with a budget cut — indeed, his budget grew faster than that of the County as a whole every single year of his tenure.

But you can’t really blame Reichert for his confusion, as he apparently never understood his own budgets in the first place. The truth is, Reichert’s budgets were a mess, repeatedly forcing him to come to the County Council and Executive with unplanned, supplemental budget requests… at a time when the county was struggling to meet revenue shortfalls without raising taxes. And apparently, not a single one of those requests were for increased supervision and oversight.

But what really irks me is the way he trods out the KCGOP’s tired old saw of blaming everything on Ron Sims… the man who appointed him to the Sheriff’s post, launching Reichert on his political career. (If you want to blame Sims for a poor decision, that one’s a doozy.) So much for loyalty.

Reichert’s unprovoked attack on Sims is a slap in the face of the undeserved comity the Executive has shown his former appointee. Ironically, the Seattle P-I had asked Sims to comment on Reichert’s tenure as Sheriff, and Sims declined. In the words of a miffed Sims staffer, the Executive explained that “he wouldn’t be able to say anything good about Reichert’s leadership of the department, and he didn’t want to lie.”

Now that Reichert has fired the opening salvo I hope that Democrats on the Council and in the Executive’s office embrace a little realpolitik. Reichert has a documented record as Sheriff, and voters deserve to know what it really is.

It’s BIAW-Bashing Night, tonight on “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, 7PM to 10PM. The lineup could change in response to breaking news, but here’s what I think I’ll be talking about tonight:

7PM: Few right-wing groups are more vocal than the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), which is in the midst of shattering campaign finance records by spending millions of dollars to put their hand-picked candidates on the state Supreme Court. But one hot-button topic they’ve been silent on is the issue of illegal immigration… and now we know why: as the Seattle Times reports today anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of residential construction workers are Latino immigrants, many of them illegal. Did the BIAW bust the unions and replace them with low cost, illegal workers? Are you willing to crack down on immigration if the result is dramatically higher food and housing costs?

8PM: Over $1.8 million has already been spent on behalf of right-wing Supreme Court challenger John Groen, most of it viciously characterizing Chief Justice Gerry Alexander as a senile, baby-killing boozer. What if anything can be done to prevent wealthy special interests like the BIAW from buying the bench? Terry Sullivan from Washington Public Campaigns joins me to discuss public financing of elections, an idea whose time may finally have come. Are you willing to pay to get big money out of local politics?

9PM: We continue our evening of BIAW-bashing when Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly joins me in the studio. In addition to discussing our disgraceful judicial elections, I’m guessing we’ll also touch upon GOP evil-mastermind Karl Rove’s visit this week on behalf of Rep. Dave “Rubberstamp” Reichert, and the state of the US Senate race between Sen. Maria Cantwell and challenger Mike?™ McGavick.

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

Here we go! Josh at Talking Points Memo finds this NRCC document showing expenditures of almost $2 million being used to fund production and placement or mailing of “issue ads.” (Of course, the term “issue ad” is a euphemism for “attack ad“).

The expenditures, being used against 20 Democratic congressional candidates, are nicely summarized by mcjoan at Daily Kos.

I’m not surprised to find that Darcy Burner is one of the 20 NRCC targets. Here is the entry for the Washington State 8th Congressional district race:

MAJORITY COMMUNICATIONS INC.
274 MARCONI BLVD.
SUITE 260
COLUMBUS, Ohio 43215

Purpose of Expenditure: Mailing Service
This Committee OPPOSES The Following Candidate: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives
State is Washington in District 08
Date Expended = 09/15/2006
Person Completing Form: CHRISTOPHER J. WARD
Date Signed = 09/15/2006
Amount Expended = $25586.91
Calendar YTD Per Election for Office Sought = $41861.91

Let’s see…we had a visit by Bush and a visit by Karl Rove to raise money for Rep. Dave Reichert, the NRCC has Darcy Burner on their top twenty hit list, and they have targeted $42,000 for the race to date. Anybody dismissing Darcy Burner’s chances in this race is simply in denial. Darcy was leading in the last public poll, but the Republican attack ads will turn that around if left unanswered.

You know where this is going…. If you haven’t yet given (or even if you have), please consider a small donation to counter the NRCC’s attack. Even $5.00 will help.

Click here to tell the NRCC to shove it!

The Seattle PI today reports that Sheriff-turned-Congressman Dave Reichert has finally broken his long silence over the problems uncovered in the King County Sheriff’s Office.

And now, as you might expect from a man of his integrity and credibility, Reichert has taken full responsibility for the failings in the Sheriff’s office under his leadership.

Just kidding! I mean you didn’t really expect that, did you? He is up for reelection, you know. No, Reichert did the right thing here…he found someone else to blame:

“Many of the issues the [Blue Ribbon investigation panel] identifies are issues that I worked to solve when I was sheriff and it is gratifying that many of their proposed solutions echo those that both I and Sheriff (Sue) Rahr have put forward,” Reichert said.

Reichert’s statement said some of his own efforts to improve officer supervision and oversight were stymied by a lack of support from other county officials. In particular, Reichert mentioned King County Executive Ron Sims.

“I worked as sheriff to address these issues and others but was often prohibited from doing so by successive years of $1 million to $2 million budget cuts,” Reichert said. “I repeatedly expressed to the county executive the need for an increased budget to effectively implement oversight of the behavior of the organization, to ensure policies and procedures are complied with and to create an ongoing auditing process in the Sheriff’s Office.”

Uh-huh…so it was Ron Sims’ fault!

Well…kind-of. You see the budget for the Sheriff’s Office increased every year from 2000 to 2004.

A spokesman for Sims said Friday that, other than a request for six more sergeants in 2001, the executive’s office could not find any requests by Reichert for the funding the statement described.

“We don’t have evidence of that,” Sims spokeswoman Carolyn Duncan said.

Duncan added that the Sheriff’s Office budget consistently has fared better than budgets of other departments over the past several years. Since 2000, the sheriff’s budget has grown by $32 million.

“The bottom line was, their budget has increased every year when other departments were taking cuts,” Duncan said.

The PI cites budget figures from 2000 to 2004 as $84.8, $95, $99, $101, and $106.7 million. In fact, in 2001 the Sheriff’s Office under-spent its budget by nearly $1.5 million.

So…it hardly seems that the underlying problems could really be about money. The series of articles published by the Seattle P-I documented problems with morale, discipline, and officer misconduct—the kinds of things that money affects only superficially in the hands of a real leader; so, maybe we can still pin this on Ron Sims….

The P-I‘s series led to the formation of the blue-ribbon panel, which issued its final report Monday. That report described multiple “longstanding” problems with officer supervision and oversight. It detailed 43 findings, six major recommendations and 36 other suggestions the panel said need to be implemented to repair a broken officer accountability system.

Though it did not single out any past administrations, the panel specifically noted among its recommendations that employee performance evaluations, which were eliminated under Reichert, should be reinstituted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so, how would eliminating employee performance evaluations cause accountability and morale problems? I mean, isn’t it simpler to just say that it was Ron Sims’ fault? After all, Reichert can show how he was instrumental in changing the culture in the Sheriff’s Office…

In his statement, Reichert also noted his administration “established the core values of the Sheriff Office, leadership, integrity, service and teamwork.”

Former County Executive Randy Revelle, who served as chairman of the blue-ribbon panel, said just having such core values isn’t enough: “It’s one thing to have them posted on a wall. But the real test is, are they guiding and influencing the character of your employees? We didn’t get the impression they were.”

But, but, but, it was Reichert who got the policy down on paper, put up the posters, and made sure everyone got the memo…see? So it must have been Ron Sims’ fault that things didn’t “take”…right?

It sounds like the only thing missing was…you know…that leadership thing.

So…um…I hope you will join Dave Reichert and me in pointing out the obvious implication: the lack of leadership in the King County Sheriff’s office was Ron Sims’ fault!

I imagine “Turd Blossom,” George Bush’s nickname for Karl Rove, refers to Rove’s ability to take a pile of shit and make something out of it. In any case, watch where you step today, because Turd Blossom is coming to town. He will be here to raise money for freshman Rep. Dave Reichert of Washington’s 8th congressional district .

Of 435 House races potentially up for grabs this November, the race between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert has attracted an extraordinary amount of attention. Just a few months ago, Karl Rove sent George W. Bush to raise money for Reichert. The plan may have backfired a bit , as Reichert raised less money, and Burner more money, than expected.

Now, Karl Rove, himself, has taken on the task of turning Reichert’s turd of a campaign into a blossom.

By almost all measures, Reichert is in big trouble. In an ordinary year, an incumbent with widespread name recognition and a good head of hair would be pretty safe. Reichert should particularly be safe against a political newcomer. But this year isn’t an ordinary year. This year there is the smell of voter dissatisfaction in the air.

The dissatisfaction is coming from three places: (1) a general dissatisfaction with incumbents, (2) a specific backlash against Bush Republicans, and (3) from candidates with the scent of corruption and Abramoff about them. Unfortunately for Reichert, all three are at work against him: he is a Bush Republican incumbent with a little bit of the stench of corruption and Abramoff after taking money from convicted former Congressman Duke Cunningham and the newest member of the Convict’s Club, Bob Ney.

And it doesn’t help that Richert is rather inarticulate, slow off the mark, and politically naive, running against an exceptionally bright and energetic Darcy Burner.

Reichert’s tenuous position is clear from the two most recent public polls, the first showing Reichert ahead and the second showing Burner ahead. The race is now rated a toss-up by the New York Times; and both CQ Politics and the Cook Political Report have upgraded the race from Republican to a more precarious leans Republican.

The most remarkable sign of Darcy Burner’s momentum in this race is that she has out-fundraised Reichert for the last three quarters!

These things just shouldn’t happen—not in an ordinary year.

The big question now is whether the net effect of Karl Rove’s visit will be to help or hurt Reichert. It is telling that the event is a private affair for some 100 wealthy donors and was not publicly announced. The Washington State Republican’s chief political clairvoyant Chris Vance (you know, the guy who could tell us just how the election contest would turn out) sees no problems for Reichert:

“In my view, there are no pitfalls (to a Rove visit) because the voters out there who have very strong feelings about this one way or the other have already made up their minds,” said Chris Vance, a former state Republican Party chairman and now a public affairs consultant with the Gallatin Group.

“Having Karl Rove here will not change anybody’s mind. But it will raise a bunch of money,” Vance said.

The trouble with Vance’s theory is that that when Bush came to raise money for Reichert, Burner also got a big fundraising boost. Naturally, when Rove’s fundraiser became public, the Darcy Burner campaign responded with a special fundraising drive focused on the visit.

I think an even bigger problem is that this visit will highlight and solidify the relationship between Reichert and the Bush administration. Who in their right mind can now believe that a reelected Reichert would vote against the administration’s interests when both Bush and Rove personally flew in to save his bacon? If Reichert had some semblance of independence during his current term (based on a couple of non-critical and pre-authorized votes), he loses it entirely by his new obligations to Bush and Rove. Indeed, in this political climate, and this particular congressional district, Karl Rove may leave more damage than can be fixed by the money he brings in.

I mean, if you try growing flowers on a turd, the wrong environment will leave you with just a stinking pile of shit.

(Send a message that Washington State will not support candidates beholden to the failures and incompetence of the Bush administration. Give something to Darcy Burner today. Remember, the number of donors is an important measure of success, so even if you can only afford five bucks, your donation strengthens the message considerably.)