HorsesAss.Org

  • Home
  • About HA
  • Advertise
  • Archives
  • Donate

Search Results for: Reichert

Burner accepts Cheney’s offer to campaign on her behalf

by Goldy — Wednesday, 4/19/06, 2:42 pm

As has been widely reported, Rep. Dave Reichert told a crowd at yesterday’s fundraiser that Vice President Dick Cheney offered to “campaign for your opponent if it’ll help.”

Well, Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has sent a letter to Cheney taking him up on his offer:

April 19, 2006

Office of the Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Vice President:

During your recent trip to Washington State to support White House endorsed candidates, you were quoted by both Seattle newspapers as telling 8th District Representative Dave Reichert that you would “campaign for your opponent if it’ll help.”

As Reichert’s Democratic opponent, I would like to take you up on your kind and thoughtful offer and I cordially invite you to come and spend a day campaigning with me in the 8th District. The district reaches from Microsoft’s Redmond Campus to Mount Rainier National Park and offers a microcosm of America. Here are some of the events I would like to plan for your visit to the 8th.

Let’s start at Mount Rainier where we can take in the beautiful and precious parklands and forests. Here you may be able to see clearly why our district so opposed the Republican plan

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

A Tale of Two Candidates (Part I)

by Goldy — Saturday, 4/15/06, 9:23 am

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos fame reports from his “Crashing the Gate” book tour, and recaps for his readers some of the “local buzz” he’s picking up along the way. First stop, WA-08:

Darcy Burner is taking on freshman Republican Dave Reichert in WA-08. She will report numbers of over $300K for Q1, which is impressive. But more so than that, the Washington state blogosphere helped her raise over $90K online in the closing hours of the fundraising quarter without any national buzz. That’s not Daily Kos or Atrios, that’s the local bloggers, and $90K is more than what we “big boys” can usually raise. If that’s not a sign of the growing power and influence of the local blogs, I’m not sure what is.

I think perhaps more than any other race, WA-08 has the potential for being a true testing ground for some of the strategic rethinking Markos and co-author Jerome Armstrong propose in Crashing the Gate. We have a smart, energetic candidate in Darcy Burner, well matched to a district that should be “swing,” but which hasn’t swung into the Democratic column since, well… forever. She is also a candidate that has recognized and embraced the power of the netroots since well before declaring her candidacy.

But equally important, Washington state has quickly evolved some of the most influential and mature local netroots in the nation… a loose coalition of bloggers who have enthusiastically embraced Burner in return. Unlike the high-profile candidacy of say, Paul Hackett, where national netroots raised gobs of money for his Ohio campaign, it was local bloggers who jumped on the Burner bandwagon early, helping to push up both her fundraising totals and her profile — and with zero national support.

Andrew Villeneuve at NPI has been in the Burner camp since day one (almost from the day we first met her at Camp Wellstone,) advising her campaign and personally introducing her to his fellow bloggers. While I waited for the field to shake out before publicly endorsing her, I’d been in regular contact with the Burner campaign for months.

And the relationship has always been two-way: Burner not only actively sought our support, she also welcomed our input and advice. Burner and her staff trust us… and that trust has been returned in spades. When Burner stopped by Drinking Liberally last week to thank the netroots for helping her blow past her fundraising targets, she knew she wasn’t going to garner any new votes — hell, most of us don’t even live in her district. I’m guessing that part of the reason she stopped by was simply to share in the genuine excitement and enthusiasm of a gathering that was about as close as you can come to an election night victory party… seven months prior to the election.

Burner came to this campaign as a political outsider, a designation proven once again in yesterday’s Washington Post, which described her as a “third tier” candidate, citing the Democrats’ failure to recruit a stronger challenger. In fact, the Democrats didn’t recruit her at all. Nearly a year ago Burner told me she was running because she was absolutely convinced that, conventional wisdom be damned, she was the perfect candidate to represent the 8th District, and since then, she’s managed to convince an awful lot of other people, including me.

Would State Rep. Ross Hunter have brought more name recognition, money, and experience into the race? Absolutely. But I sincerely doubt that an establishment Democrat like Hunter could have garnered the kind of genuine grassroots excitement that Burner has generated over the past few months. Burner is for real, not because the consultants and power brokers say she’s for real, but because she has managed to prove herself to the grassroots, the netroots, and the party leadership.

Of course, with her early success comes risks. One of the things that Markos and Jerome rail against is the way the national party steps into local campaigns, bringing in their establishment consultants, and demanding the same-old losing strategies. This not only ignores and devalues the unique insight of local political talent, it stunts their development… and judging by the Democrats near permanent minority party status at the federal level, it doesn’t seem to be working.

But if the national party should respect local perspective and talent then the same should hold true for the netroots, and just as Burner has proven herself to the DCCC, so too have our local netroots proven to our national counterparts our ability to generate buzz and money beyond all expectations. We know the district. We know the candidates. We know the muck that’s going to make Reichert’s reelection a muddy row to hoe. So when we ask that Burner be “netroots edorsed” — with all the money, support, and attention that will bring — we ask the national netroots to trust our local judgement.

Burner has quickly gone from unknown, political neophyte to the cover of Roll Call, and while she and her campaign deserve most of the credit, I don’t believe she could have done it without the enthusiastic support of local bloggers. Now it’s time to help Burner move to the next level, and we simply can’t do it without a little national support.

Markos also saw fit to comment on Sen. Maria Cantwell… and it wasn’t so glowing. Tomorrow I’ll talk about the opposition Sen. Cantwell faces from local Democratic activists and what impact this could have on the entire Democratic ticket.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

The state GOP’s 3-step smear campaign

by Goldy — Friday, 4/14/06, 12:37 pm

I was all set to write about the incredibly manipulative and dishonest tactics behind the state GOP’s frivolous FEC complaint against Darcy Burner… but The Stranger’s Eli Sander’s beat me to it. Sanders outlines the GOP’s simple, time-tested, three-step process towards casting unfounded aspersions.

Step 1: Have the State Republican Party write up the complaint. Mail it off, post it on the web, and send an email to local bloggers and reporters headlined: “8th District Democrat named in campaign violation complaint.” That’ll get their attention. And it does! Bloggers post it (here and here). And the next day, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer picks it up, as does the King County Journal.

Step 2: Nevermind that the Burner campaign has already answered the allegations, calling them “frivolous.” The seeds of suspicion have been planted. It will take the FEC weeks, if not months, and maybe even until after the election, to determine whether the complaint has merit. In the meantime, encourage conservative blogger Stefan Sharkansky to do a running series of posts on the subject (here and here).

Step 3: Feed the story to the conservative Washington Times so that when it dutifully reports on the allegations (as it did today) Sharkansky can do a post announcing “Darcy Burner Makes the National News. Ouch.”

And there you have it: Aspersions cast, doubts raised, a “national story” created, and all of it just in time for Reichert’s campaign kickoff next Tuesday!

When we talk about the right-wing media echo chamber — or Markos and Jerome reference the incredible infrastructure advantage the Republicans have at their disposal — this is the type of crap we’re talking about.

Meanwhile, if you’re more interested in Burner the candidate than the fearful, cynical machinations of her Republican opponent, the Stranger is giving you the opportunity to question her on the issues:

Burner has agreed to address The Issues you find most important, but that we’ve apparently been negligent in covering. So post your questions in the comments section below, and we’ll slog her responses sometime early next week.

Betcha you won’t see that kind of responsiveness from Reichert.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Burner Buzz spooks Republicans

by Goldy — Wednesday, 4/12/06, 6:07 pm

Oh man does Darcy Burner have the Republicans running scared. First, our good friend Stefan attempts to “pull a Goldy” with his ridiculous hit on Burner’s resume, and now the WA State GOP gets into the act with a frivolous FEC complaint.

In regards to the Burner campaign, the complaint mostly focuses on a video produced last fall at the caucuses for Eastside Democracy for America. After tossing about a few insults, state GOP chair Diane Tebelius alleges that:

The group produced and distributed a videotape of the event, the cost of which likely exceeds the $5,000 contribution limit for Political Action Committees.

I’ll ignore the question of whether Eastside DFA is or is not a PAC; that’s none of Burner’s concern. But “the group” did not produce this video. It was produced by Andrew Tsao (who also happens to be NPI’s Media & Communications Director) on a purely volunteer basis. Nobody paid him for his efforts. As far as I know, he wasn’t even reimbursed for the cost of the videotape.

And as the Burner campaign points out in response to the complaint, if individuals volunteer their services to a campaign without compensation, such volunteer activity is not reportable. Indeed, they don’t just point this out, they provide the text of the actual FEC regulation:

Personal Services

Basic Rule: No Compensation

An individual may volunteer personal services to a campaign without making a contribution as long as the individual is not compensated by anyone for the services. 100.74. Volunteer activity is not reportable.

EXAMPLE: An attorney, working as a volunteer (i.e., he receives no compensation from anyone), writes policy papers for the campaign.

Note, however, that if volunteers are, in fact, paid for their services, the activity is no longer considered volunteer activity, and the payments, if made by someone other than the campaign itself, result in in-kind contributions, which must be reported by the campaign. 100.54. (Exception: “Free Legal and Accounting Services,” above.)

Hmm. Well, Tebelius may not have done her homework, but I understand a couple of reporters have, and the FEC told them exactly what they told the Burner campaign. Tsao’s video was completely kosher, and was not subject to the reporting requirements.

But you know, I can see how a professional politico like Tebelius might be confused, as doing stuff for free just isn’t something one expects from Republicans. So if you think they’re nervous now, just wait until reality sets in… for Burner didn’t just outraise Reichert two-to-one during the last quarter all by her lonesome… she did it on the backs of grassroots volunteers like Tsao.

The Burner Buzz continues to build….

UPDATE:
More details over on NPI.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Roll Call: Burner surprises national Dems (and R’s)

by Goldy — Monday, 4/10/06, 12:42 pm

Yeah, sure… when I talk up Darcy Burner, you can dismiss that as partisan puffery. But when Roll Call says “Reichert May Face Tough Challenge From Neophyte,” um, well… you can bet the R’s are more than a little bit nervous.

While McMorris, whose district sits safely east of the Cascade Mountains in strong GOP territory, likely will coast back to Congress, Reichert may have to fight tooth-and-nail to become a sophomore.

Reichert represents a classic swing suburban district outside of Seattle that is becoming more Democratic. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) took the 8th district with 51 percent of the vote in 2004, compared to President Bush’s 48 percent, and Reichert won with just 52 percent last time.

“The 8th is a swing, Democratic district,” concedes Reichert’s political consultant Bruce Boram. “Any Democratic opponent who runs against Reichert starts at 43 percent [of the vote].”

Add that more than 60 percent of 8th district voters currently believe the country is on the wrong track, according to recent polls, that the popularity of Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress are at all-time lows and that the district “is definitely trending in the Democrats’ favor,” and “it’s an environment where you have to take that seriously,” Boram added.

The factors Boram ticks off combine to make a potent electoral cocktail, but what could make it a double for Reichert is money.

Democrat Darcy Burner surprised national Democrats, Republicans and probably Reichert by outraising him 2-1 in the first quarter of this year.

She still trails him in overall cash on hand, but she dramatically narrowed the ratio with a stellar three-month period that saw her bring in $140,000 in the last 10 days of March.

Boram said Reichert likely began April with more than $700,000 while Burner had $355,000 in the bank.

Burner gave her campaign $25,000 and loaned it $10,000 but is not expected to seriously self-fund.

“Darcy Burner has done a phenomenal job establishing herself as an aggressive candidate for change right out of the gate,” said Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “She’s really demonstrated she’s going to make a run at this seat.”

She certainly has.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Stefan Sharkansky: all rake and no muck

by Goldy — Thursday, 4/6/06, 8:44 am

Looks like the Reichert folk are starting to feel the heat from Darcy Burner, whose campaign to unseat the first term, 8th Congressional District Republican just jumped into the national spotlight with a spectacular first quarter fundraising report. Burner out-raised Reichert two-to-one during the quarter, including an impressive $90,000 in the final two days of the reporting period… and her $536,000 total is more than any Democrat has ever raised at this point in any 8th CD race. Ever.

Up until now the standard GOP response to Burner has been to merely dismiss her as a novice and a political lightweight… but no more. Local Republicans are nervous, and you can see it in the rhetorical beads of sweat dripping off the knotted brows of our good friend Stefan over at (un)Sound Politics.

Sounding like a pale imitation of, well… me… Stefan set out yesterday to strike a deadly blow against the surging Burner campaign, but the only damage he managed to inflict was to his own, already battered and bruised credibility.

Stefan makes three charges against Burner, that 1) she has inflated her resume by claiming to be a “former Microsoft executive;” 2) that she’s neither a regular voter nor involved in her community, and 3) that there are “funny inconsistensies” [sic] in her “stories” about leaving Microsoft.

Gee. Going after inflated resumes and sparse voting records. I wonder where Stefan got that idea? What… he couldn’t find any mother beating or horse associations in her background?

From the way Stefan thematically borrowed from some of my better known scoops, one might think I was as much his target as Burner. And ordinarily I’d be flattered by such mimicry… that is, if Stefan hadn’t done such a crappy job of it. I take great pride in my muckraking — in both its accuracy and its impact — and as the local blogosphere’s most effective practitioner of the art, I’ve got a bit of advice: good muckraking requires more than just a good rake, Stefan. You also need to find a little, um… you know… muck.

Indeed, Stefan’s fanciful essay was so thin on fact and so thick on conjecture, it’s really not even worth refuting. But he and I have a special sort of personal bond, and I wouldn’t want to hurt his feelings by withholding my critique… so let’s take his fantasies in numerical order. Stefan writes:

Burner is inflating her resume. Burner’s campaign and supporters in the media call her a “former Microsoft executive”. This is an enormous exaggeration. She was not any kind of “executive”, a term customarily applied only to the most senior company officials…

Oh please.

Burner uses the word “executive” in the little “e” generic sense to describe her role at Microsoft to the general public. What did she do there? She managed a multimillion dollar budget. She managed managers and oversaw an entire team of employees. She worked with businesses from all over the world to help them benefit from Microsoft’s technology. So was she an “executive”…?

ex

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Note to Dixon: call self on election day

by Goldy — Thursday, 3/23/06, 1:31 pm

Geov Parrish has a piece in the current issue of the Seattle Weekly on Green Party senate candidate Aaron Dixon, and while I disagree with Geov’s broad condemnation of Sen. Maria Cantwell’s voting record, I know from our conversations that we share a lot of common ground… like our mutual criticism of the Greens’ failure to do the hard work necessary to build itself into a real party.

For example, if I were advising Dixon, I think maybe my first recommendation would be to, gee… I dunno… register to vote?

Yeah, that’s right… apparently the man so disgusted with Cantwell and the Dems that he’s willing to pour his energies into giving voters a third choice, isn’t even an active voter himself!

Go look it up in our good friend Stefan’s voter registration database, and you’ll find an Aaron L. Dixon, born Jan. 2, 1949, who registered to vote in 1998 at an address on the 500 block of 29th AVE S. But he’s listed as “inactive,” and there’s no record that he’s ever been credited with voting.

I suppose Stefan’s data could be wrong (it’s been known to happen) so I’ve made repeated inquiries with Dixon’s media contact (his wife Farah), and so far she has been unable to confirm or deny his voter registration status. She said she thought he voted in the last election, but King County’s voter database clearly doesn’t credit him with casting a ballot. And to further cloud his registration status is the fact that while he claims to live in the Beacon Hill neighborhood, the address on his inactive registration is smack dab in the Central District.

Perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation, and if so, I’ll print a retraction. (And if there is an explanation, then they need to get their media shit together, because I gave them every opportunity to refute this.) But it sure doesn’t look like during the past few years, Dixon has been much of an active voter.

So why the hell is he running for the US Senate?

Now I don’t want to get all high and mighty on him, but in my book, you don’t have much right to criticize the electoral process if you don’t participate. And if anybody should understand the importance of minority communities exercising their voting rights, it’s a longtime activist and former Black Panther Party leader like Aaron Dixon.

I mean, really… who the hell is Dixon to talk about “all the people fed up with the current political system” if he doesn’t vote?

One couldn’t help but wonder if the Greens’ recruitment of Dixon was demographically cynical considering his prior lack of history with the party, but an active voter registration is a technical prerequisite of candidacy, so you’d think they would have at least inquired about that one, basic qualification for office, huh? And it doesn’t say much about their GOTV potential when they can’t even get the top of their ticket to reliably turn out at the polls.

I personally sympathize with the Green agenda, but am endlessly disappointed by their half-assed and counterproductive strategy and execution. And as Geov points out, I’m not the only one giving a hostile welcome to Dixon’s largely fictional candidacy:

So far, the reaction to Dixon’s campaign among many progressive Democratic activists has been negative. In Seattle, Dixon’s home base, progressive bloggers mostly ignored or excoriated his campaign. Not one speaker on a panel of six of the most prominent local progressive bloggers, including myself, at last week’s “Podcasting Liberally” (www.podcastingliberally.com) defended Dixon’s campaign. Most, while professing sympathy for green ideals, savaged it and the Greens. What’s wrong?

“Aaron Dixon started out the campaign with two lies,” says David Goldstein of HorsesAss.org, Seattle’s best-known progressive blogger and a fierce critic of Dixon. “The first one being, ‘I can win’; the second one being, ‘There’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.'”

Though in all fairness, I suppose when it comes to the vote you don’t cast, there really is no difference between which party doesn’t get it.

The other day I pleaded with my fellow progressives to get real and accept the fact that our choice this November is between Cantwell and McGavick, and that sometimes, life forces us to compromise. I don’t expect the race to be nearly as close as it was in 2000, but if it is, even a pathetic showing by Dixon could be enough to give President Bush another rubber stamp in the Senate. And the political ramifications could be much broader.

Goldstein also points not only to the infamous “spoiler” factor but to the impact of Dixon’s presence on the ballot if the race between Cantwell and Republican challenger Mike McGavick changes from a comfortable Democratic win to a closer race of, say, 5 percent.

The loser, Goldstein says, will be Darcy Burner, whose challenge of U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert in the 8th Congressional District east of Lake Washington is the state’s second-biggest race this year. If Cantwell’s race is close, the theory goes, it costs Burner both campaign money and media exposure that will flow to the Senate race instead. That, Goldstein says, would hurt the chance to elect a progressive to Congress in a winnable race, all for Dixon’s quixotic bid.

Of course, Dixon disagrees… but then, what does he know about electoral politics? He doesn’t even vote.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Sen. McCain campaigns for Darcy Burner

by Goldy — Thursday, 3/23/06, 8:36 am

In one of his signature fits of truthfulness, Sen. John McCain told John Carlson that the 8th CD race between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert will be “a close one to watch.”

Hmm.

Well I’d certainly hate to make a potential GOP presidential nominee into a liar, so that’s why I urge you to make a generous contribution to Burner’s campaign. NOW.

See, Burner is working hard towards an end of reporting quarter goal of $320,000 cash on hand, and if she meets it, she’ll be eligible for $250,000 of DCCC “Red to Blue” money. Burner’s on the verge of becoming a national Democratic darling… but she needs your support to help push her over the top. So yank out your credit card, go to my Act Blue page, and give what you can afford.

Please help make Sen. McCain an honest man… and give to Darcy Burner.

CORRECTION:
I’ve been told that McCain’s exact words were that he called it a “tight race.” Same difference.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Goldmark to challenge McMorris in 5th CD

by Goldy — Thursday, 3/16/06, 2:56 pm

It’s a Stranger kind of day. Josh Feit reports on Slog that Okanogan County rancher Peter Goldmark is back in the race against first term GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris in the 5th Congressional District… and a whole bunch of sources confirm that it is true.

Goldmark’s got a great bio for the district, and while I’ve never met him, those who have assure me that he’ll be a great candidate. This is a guy with stature, and it would be a huge mistake for McMorris to take his challenge lightly.

As Rep. Jay Insee points out in The Stranger’s feature story on Darcy Burner, Republicans could be facing a very tough election… even in solidly red Eastern Washington:

“There’s no way to predict anything in politics, but right now it does look like there’s the potential for a tsunami like the one we experienced in 1994,” Inslee told me. “The conditions that existed then, I believe, exist now. The country is outraged at the ineptitude and incompetence of this administration.”

Inslee says he’s “very impressed” with Burner, but adds that if the electorate is demanding change, it may be enough for her to simply not be Reichert. “Once a tide like that begins to run,” he says, “it doesn’t matter what kind of swimmer you are, you can be swept out.”

The political climate is such that upsets can happen… but in order to win an upset election, you have to have a candidate running. With Goldmark the Democrats have found a very credible challenger who could turn this into a very interesting race.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Stranger goes ga-ga over Darcy Burner (and rightly so)

by Goldy — Thursday, 3/16/06, 9:34 am

I think Eli Sanders may be in love, but too bad for him, Darcy Burner is happily married. Not that I blame him. A lot of people are falling in love with Burner… well, at least her candidacy anyway.

Burner is running against first-term Republican Dave Reichert in Washington’s 8th Congressional District, and Sanders’ feature in this week’s Stranger (“Fighting Mood“) is a great introduction to both the electoral dynamics and the candidate herself.

Darcy Burner is a military brat, computer geek, and former Microsoft executive. Howard Dean believes she can help the Democrats take Washington State’s 8th Congressional District and the U.S. Congress

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Elway: no flowers and candy for Mike McGavick

by Goldy — Thursday, 3/2/06, 12:45 am

Giant Check
McGavick campaign worker shows Dems where they can stick their giant check.

Yesterday was Mike McGavick’s last official day as an insurance industry executive, and to celebrate, the state Dems stopped by to present him with a giant check symbolizing the $4.5 million in accelerated stock options he earned as part of his $15 million golden parachute. Technically, Safeco is constrained by the same campaign finance limits as you or I, but insurance industry lobbyist cum CEO cum senate candidate McGavick is free to spend as much on his own campaign as his new-found personal fortune affords him. How convenient.

Still, after studying the latest Elway Poll, it’s starting to look like no amount of money can buy McGavick this election. The other day I briefly commented on Sen. Maria Cantwell’s impressive 30-point lead, but if McGavick boosters found the headline disheartening, they better flip on their pacemakers before delving into the cross-tabs. I can’t post a copy here (I shouldn’t even have one myself,) but I’m happy to share some of the juicier tidbits.

Cantwell - McGavick poll

As I previously reported, Cantwell enjoys a 55 to 25 percent lead over McGavick, but when you break down the numbers McGavick looks even weaker. Indeed, Cantwell’s margin actually improved when matched against McGavick than in the abstract re-elect/replace question. While Cantwell’s support holds steady at 55 percent, McGavick polls seven points behind a generic candidate, and those saying they will “definitely” vote for Cantwell rises from 24 to 31 percent. Of those who originally were inclined to vote against Cantwell, only 66 percent said they would vote for McGavick, with 11 percent deciding they would vote for Cantwell after all.

McGavick fares worse than a generic opponent. Ouch. But Elway tries to soothe the sting:

This is a familiar phenomenon early in the campaign, when the opponent is not as well known. In the abstract, respondents get to imagine their ideal opponent, a standard that real candidates can rarely live up to.

That may be true. But it should be remembered that McGavick first kicked off his campaign back in July… and again in October… twenty-four more times in January… and once again as recently as February 15. Furthermore, the sample was taken well after McGavick’s six-figure introductory TV ad campaign that ran in high profile slots during the Seahawks Super Bowl run. And yet according to Elway, Cantwell leads McGavick in every area of the state, in every demographic except Republicans… and by “significant margins.”

Clearly, whatever McGavick has been doing, hasn’t been working… and so he’s called a press conference for Thursday morning to present to reporters his “central campaign themes”… which if he’s smart, won’t be the same themes he’s stressed thus far.

While McGavick’s early ads tried to sell him as someone who can cut through the partisan strife in the other Washington, voters in this Washington simply aren’t buying it. By a 44-26% margin, respondents said a Democrat incumbent is more likely to reduce partisanship than a Republican challenger, while 45-28% of respondents saw a Democrat as more effective at reforming Congress.

[Cantwell] has a sizable advantage on her issues and she even appears to be beating McGavick on his own issues.

At least 51% of respondents graded Cantwell “satisfactory” or better on each of the 7 issue categories polled, including traditional Republican issues like “government spending and taxes,” “national security,” and “moral issues like abortion and gay marriage.” Um… what the hell is McGavick going to run on?

And all this comes in the context of an absolutely terrible political climate for anybody running with an “R” next to their name.

Winning statewide as a Republican in Washington state has not been easy for about a generation, but it looks especially difficult this year. Nationally, pundits are talking about a “reverse 1994” when the GOP swept the board and took control of Congress. Some Democrats are thinking that it’s comeback time. That may or may not pan out nationally, but in Washington state the early signs point that way.

President Bush’s job approval ratings are about 5:3 negative in WA (compared to 5:4 negative nationally,) with 46% of respondents saying he is doing a “poor” job. Even 22% of Republicans give Bush a negative rating. Meanwhile, Democrats hold a 15-point edge in the generic voting for Congress question (6 points higher than the national average.)

And it gets even worse for Republicans. Half the respondents said divided control of Congress “works best for the country,” and when combined with those who favored Democratic control, 73% were disinclined to vote Republican. Finally…

When asked directly about this Senate race (“If McGavick were to replace Cantwell in the US Senate, that would strengthen the Republican majority in the US Senate”) respondents said that was a reason to vote for Cantwell by nearly 2:1, including a 22-point gap among independents.

In this climate, even McGavick’s strengths seem to work against him, including the classic Republican tactic of running a successful businessman as a political outsider.

Typically, the outsider mantle has been an advantage when voters seem ready to throw the bums out. The voters in this survey, however, by a 4:3 ratio, rated the fact that McGavick was a CEO and not a politician as a reason to vote for Cantwell. She even had a 2-point edge on this point among people employed in the private sector.

Double ouch.

Perhaps the only ray of hope Elway could find for a non-politician like McGavick running against an incumbent, was that voters said “stands on specific issues” and “overall philosophy” were more important than “record and experience,” and that with the exception of the top ranked issue — health care — the other top issues were ones the GOP has run on for years: the economy, war, foreign policy, values and taxes. But Elway throws in a caveat:

The caution would be that 69% of those who said “stands on issues” or “overall philosophy” were not Republicans: 25% were Independents and 44% were Democrats. For the Democrats in particular, what they want to hear about the economy and the war is unlikely to be what a Republican will be saying.

Quite frankly, McGavick’s timing sucks. Republicans have long considered Cantwell to be vulnerable, but her job approval ratings have steadily climbed, even as the political climate for WA Republicans has all but tanked. McGavick has so far failed to gain any traction with voters, but as weak as he is, Cantwell’s strength should not be understated… indeed, her 55% re-elect compares quite favorably with Sen. Patty Murray’s 49% standing in February of 2004. Murray went on to win with 55% of the vote. As Elway notes:

The voters may not be wild about Maria Cantwell, but they like her better than they used to, and they are not greeting Mike McGavick with flowers and candy.

Of course the election is still nine months out, and after a ton of paid media, it’s hard to imagine the race won’t tighten… but if it doesn’t, the repercussions will be felt far outside the U.S. Senate. A Cantwell cakewalk could only help Darcy Burner’s challenge in the 8th Congressional District, extending coattails from the top of the ticket, and freeing up money that might otherwise be spent defending an incumbent senator. The Reichert-Burner race is already shaping up to be a nail-biter, and if McGavick fails to create a little drama, the media will turn its attention to the 8th CD, further enhancing Burner’s profile.

Yeah, it’s only a poll, it’s only February, and this is only some idle speculation. But you can be sure that if these numbers were flipped, it’d be the bloggers on the other side who were doing all the speculating.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

EFF initiative illegal… and they know it

by Goldy — Thursday, 2/23/06, 2:36 pm

In writing about the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s plan to file an initiative purging WA’s voter rolls, and forcing everybody to reregister, WashBlog’s Noemie Maxwell asks:

Why does the Evergreen Freedom Foundation pour probably hundreds of thousands of dollars – the talents and time of its staff members and dedicated citizen volunteers, into the project of convincing the voters of Washington State, despite all evidence to the contrary, that our government and our citizens cannot be trusted?

But to answer this and other questions about the EFF’s voter purge proposal, all one really needs to know about this initiative is that it is ILLEGAL… and they know it.

I’m no lawyer (much to my mother’s chagrin,) but most statutes really aren’t all that difficult to read, and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 — commonly known as “Moter Voter” — lays down very clear guidelines governing the circumstances by which states can purge voters from the rolls… and pandering, partisan paranoia is not one of them.

Go ahead, argue the EFF’s case all you want, but Sec. 1973gg-6 (a) ensures that in the administration of voter registration for federal elections, states shall:

(3) provide that the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except –

( A ) at the request of the registrant;
( B ) as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity; or
( C ) as provided under paragraph (4);
(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of –
( A ) the death of the registrant; or
( B ) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections ( b ), ( c ), and ( d ) of this section;

That’s it. Once registered, a voter “may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except” at his own request, or due to felony conviction or mental incapacity, death, or change of address. There are absolutely no other circumstances under federal law that a registrant may be removed from the rolls. None. Nada. Bupkis.

There’s not much room for interpretation here, especially in light of the stated legislative intent:

The purposes of this subchapter are –

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

Clearly, purging the entire voter roll and forcing everybody to reregister could only achieve the opposite.

Which of course, the EFF wouldn’t mind. But they’re not stupid, and neither are their lawyers, so of course they understand at least as well as I do that their initiative cannot possibly achieve their stated objective. Which brings us back to Noemi’s question: why would the EFF pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into such a blatantly undemocratic, illegal, and ultimately futile initiative?

Hmm. Well… because this initiative has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of the voter rolls. No, this cynical little abuse of the initiative process is purely strategic, and is focused entirely on propping up the election prospects of Mike McGavick, Dave Reichert, and Republican state legislators.

You see, even a losing campaign can be a worthwhile investment if it pays collateral benefits on election day, and anybody who thinks initiatives are simply about passing laws, hasn’t been paying close attention to how the parties and their surrogates routinely use initiative campaigns to influence public opinion and strategically drive voter turnout. Indeed, some initiatives — like the EFF’s latest stinking pile of political bullshit — are entirely strategic, having absolutely no reasonably obtainable, direct legislative goals whatsoever.

So why would the EFF sponsor this initiative? Because they are a bunch of deceitful, manipulative, calculating liars, whose only goal is to seize political power for themselves and their right-wing fellow travelers, at any cost. It is fair to say that everything about this initiative is a lie, from their feigned concern over the cleanliness of our voter rolls (our Republican Secretary of State has found no evidence of illegal votes,) to their absolutely bizarre proposal to eliminate voter fraud by, um… eliminating voters.

I could spend pages refuting the EFF’s arguments, but to do so in the context of an initiative that clearly violates federal law is not only a waste of time, it’s exactly what the EFF wants. The entire purpose of this initiative is to rile up the paranoid Republican base enough to turn them out on election day, and I for one, am not interested in giving the EFF the bogus debate they want.

The EFF has proposed a laughable and illegal initiative, aimed at a problem that doesn’t exist… and it only deserves to be debated as such.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Abrams out of 8th CD race?

by Goldy — Tuesday, 1/24/06, 3:00 pm

A little birdy has told me that contrary to prior reports, biotech entrepreneur Paul Abrams will not run for the Democratic nomination to challenge Rep. Dave Reichert in the 8th Congressional District. This leaves Darcy Burner as the only Democrat officially in the race, with a possible run still being mulled over by Montrail, Inc. founder and CEO Menno van Wyk.

Abrams certainly has a large enough personal fortune to finance his own campaign, but I think his dropping out is yet another indication of party support solidifying around Burner, who has proven to be a tireless campaigner and fundraiser. A year ago, few people would have given Burner a snowball’s chance, but now, the people in the know really believe that she can win in November.

UPDATE:
I just received an email from Menno van Wyk saying that he has informed Burner that he is not a candidate, and that he would do whatever he could to help her beat Reichert. So either my bird got Abrams and Wyk confused, or Burner is now running for the nomination unopposed.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Well, another little bird tells me that my first little bird had it straight. Apparently, both Abrams and Wyk have dropped out, leaving Burner unopposed. It looks like we have a nominee.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Darcy Rules

by Goldy — Thursday, 1/12/06, 3:20 pm

While Rep. Dave Reichert and the GOP House collapse under the weight of an expanding ethical crisis, 8th District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has adopted some “House Rules” of her own. Attacking Congress for putting the needs of high-powered DC lobbyists above those of taxpayers, she has enunciated a clear set of guidelines by which she and her staff will interact with lobbyists:

NO SECRET LOBBYIST MEETINGS: My office will report all meetings that any member of my staff or I have with a registered lobbyist, to be updated on my website once a week.

NO HELPING MEMBERS CASH IN: No member of Congress with whom I have served who becomes a federal registered lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after that member has left Congress.

NO HELPING LOBBYISTS CASH IN: No former member of my staff who becomes a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after they have left my employment.

NO FAMILY LOBBYISTS: No direct relation of any member of my staff or of mine who is a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my office or me.

NO LOBBYIST SPONSORED TRAVEL: All trips by my staff or me will either be official trips and thus paid by Congress or they will be paid by each person taking the trip or, if either partisan or campaign related, by my campaign funds.

NO LOBBYIST GIFTS: No gifts will be accepted by my staff or by me from any registered federal lobbyist.

COMPLIANCE: Any member of my staff who willfully violates any of these rules will be terminated.

What does this mean? Well, first of all, it means working for Burner won’t be a get-rich-quick scheme like some congressional gigs. It also means Burner’s staffers will have to work a helluva lot harder than most of their colleagues, as staffers often rely on their lobbyist buddies for position papers, talking points… even (gasp) drafting legislation.

It also means that a Congresswoman Burner would run as transparent and influence free an office as you’re likely to find in the Capitol.

Burner has challenged Reichert to adopt similar rules for the remainder of his term, and beyond. Fat chance. Reichert has proven to be a bit of an overwhelmed lightweight, captive to his professional staff and advisors, and there’s no way they’re going to let him throw them off the gravy train.

And you know what else his staff won’t ever let him do? Debate Burner. You know why? They’re afraid. (And so is he.)

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print

Drinking Liberally (special guests!)

by Goldy — Tuesday, 1/10/06, 1:36 pm

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. A couple of special guests are scheduled to stop by tonight: 8th Congressional District candidate Darcy Burner, and King County Bar Association President Roger Goodman.

Darcy, of course, is the woman who’s going to kick Dave Reichert’s sorry ass next November, and Nick’s email describes Roger as “a strong advocate of drug enforcement reform.” I think that means legalization. So come on down, get a few drinks into you, and then argue with Roger about the dangers of legalizing intoxicating substances.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Print
  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • Next Page »

Recent HA Brilliance…

  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 7/11/25
  • Friday Open Thread Friday, 7/11/25
  • Wednesday Open Thread Wednesday, 7/9/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 7/8/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 7/7/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 7/4/25
  • Wednesday Open Thread Wednesday, 7/2/25
  • Drinking Liberally — Seattle Tuesday, 7/1/25
  • Monday Open Thread Monday, 6/30/25
  • Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! Friday, 6/27/25

Tweets from @GoldyHA

I no longer use Twitter because, you know, Elon is a fascist. But I do post occasionally to BlueSky @goldyha.bsky.social

From the Cesspool…

  • Elijah Dominic McDotcom on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Roger Rabbit on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Roger Rabbit on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Hippocrates on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Thunderstorms on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • RedReformed on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Roger Rabbit on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Roger Rabbit on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Roger Rabbit on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!
  • Vicious Troll on Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!

Please Donate

Currency:

Amount:

Archives

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.

© 2004–2025, All rights reserved worldwide. Except for the comment threads. Because fuck those guys. So there.