Search Results for: Reichert

If you’ve noticed an absence of substantive posting from me over the past couple days, it’s not from a lack of writing.  In fact, I’ve written a couple of rants, several thousand words total, responding to the editorial endorsements of Dave Reichert by the both the Seattle Times, and even more disappointingly, the Seattle P-I.

It was cathartic.  It felt good.  But, well, sometimes one can be too honest, and at this point, really, what’s the point?  So I’ll just keep my least constructive comments to myself.

But I’m sitting here watching the debate between Darcy Burner and Reichert on KCTS-9, a debate in which Darcy is clearly kicking the incumbent’s ass, and so I just can’t let this all pass by without at least one blunt critique, and that is that both paper’s editorial boards appear to have knowingly endorsed the least intelligent, least knowledgeable, and least capable candidate.  As my 11-year-old daughter just aptly observed, Reichert “sounds like a little kid giving a report that he didn’t practice on, and knows nothing about.”

Or perhaps I give the editorial boards too much credit?

You see, I have always started from the basic assumption that the vast majority of voters would prefer elected leaders who are at least as smart and capable as they are.  These are our leaders after all, and we entrust in them huge responsibilities.  I accept that there are multiple intelligences, and that being book-smart is not a qualification on its own, but generally, it seems like a good idea to populate Congress with our best and our brightest.

And the fact is, Dave Reichert is, well, average.  There’s no getting around that.  He’s not well educated, he’s not well informed, and he has few if any accomplishments to show for his four years in the House.  Indeed, neither the Times nor the P-I argue that Reichert is exceptional in any way, instead, they argue, he is, well, good enough.

So if Reichert is good enough for our two dailies, what does that say about the editorial writers themselves?

Unlike me, do these editorialists simply not mind being represented by somebody who is less capable than they are?  Or does my assumption hold true, and are these editorialists simply as mediocre as Reichert?  Do they accept Reichert as good enough because they really do find him to be an intellectual equal?

I know I may come off as sounding a little elitist, but Congress is a very elite organization, and it just seems that our region would be best served by selecting the very best representatives we can find.  And Reichert simply is not that.

He is, however, the incumbent, and what we have seen from both papers is little more than a defense of incumbency, a circular logic that argues that Reichert’s experience in Congress, however unremarkable, is the singular qualification that makes him a better choice than Darcy.  And if that is the curious logic by which our region’s opinion leaders determine their endorsements, then my original assumption is left unchallenged.

Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert debated again this afternoon, and from what I’m hearing, she kicked his ass.  Watch for yourself tonight at 7PM, on KCTS Channel 9.

The  U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which took $23 million from AIG to lobby for deregulation of the markets by the way, is running a one-week $156,000 TV spot supporting U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-8) in his run against Darcy Burner.

The National Federation of Independent Business will begin a $219,000 pro-Reichert TV campaign the following week. 

Burner got dinged in the Seattle Times last week for all the netroots money she’s getting ($400,000 in small donations). The implication, sorta like the implication of all the out-of-state Howard Dean supporters who gave Dean a bad name in Iowa for carpetbagging, being that Burner’s support isn’t tied to the 8th District.

What then is the implication of these Reichert buys by the Chamber and the NFIB? Has the other Washington come to bail him out?

In direct donations, Burner is beating Reichert $2.3 million to $1.8 million, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Rep. Dave Reichert was coy the morning of last week’s House bailout vote, apparently indicating that he was waiting to see whether it would win or lose before casting his vote.  The bill failed, and Reichert voted no.

Well, now that it looks like the revised bailout is going to pass the House, will Reichert join a number of his colleagues, and flip to the yes side?  That would of course be classic Reichert, voting both no and yes on the same bill, so that he could take either side of the issue depending on the audience he’s speaking to.  (Or both sides of the issue if he’s talking to the Seattle Times editorial board, who apparently view such flip-floppery as a sign of moderation.)

We’ll soon know.

I see that Congress will consider a major bail out of the financial institutions, possibly in the next week. While we don’t know all of the details yet, it will most likely involve the taxpayers taking on $700 billion of bad debt and getting little in return.

As Representatives who voted for the bankruptcy bill, it would be immoral of you to support such a bail out. After all, with that vote you showed no sympathy for guardsmen called up to Iraq – a war most of you supported – or Afghanistan at a pay lower than their civilian job not being able to pay the bills. And you had no sympathy for the parent of a child without health care -that many of you have done nothing to help them get – who had to put the bills on their credit card and then got overwhelmed. Now, to sympathize with huge corporations that made bad decisions would just be rank hypocracy in service of the very, very rich.

XXOO

Carl Ballard

I’ll be posting a story in a few hours. By “story,” I mean a more traditional news story than you typically read on HA. 

This is all part of the grand experiment Goldy and I are up to: Goldy assigned me to cover the local ’08 races—Gregoire vs. Rossi, Reichert vs. Burner, and some of the statewide contests further down the ticket like the actually-kind of-thrilling race for Commissioner of Public Lands.

In addition to the hard-hitting analysis and dogged partisan offense that you’ve come to expect on HA, we want to add some original news reporting to the mix to see if we can turn this new media thing into a full-fledged new media thing, man. That’s a translation of me and Goldy after a few drinks.  

First, though, here’s something I came across while doing the reporting for my story (an outtake, I guess): Along with voting for a voucher school program; voting to cut $7 billion in student aid; voting to freeze Pell Grants; and voting to repeal the estate tax (which would have torpedoed education funding) to earn his lowly C rating from the National Education Association after his first term in office, Rep. Dave Reichert also voted for this.

The successful amendment to the 2005 bill reauthorizing Head Start funding repealed established civil rights protections by allowing federally funded Head Start programs with religious affiliations to hire and fire teachers and staff and volunteers based on religion. 

At the time, an alarmed  ACLU fired off this letter to protest the amendment.

The Seattle Times reports today that the US Chamber of Commerce is lying on Dave Reichert’s behalf in radio ads that falsely accuse Darcy Burner of supporting “higher taxes on families with children.”  Imagine that.

The radio spot, which started airing Friday in local markets, is part of a $20 million national ad buy with which the U.S. Chamber is supporting some House and Senate candidates.

And that’s on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars the Chamber has spent over the past half decade or so, backing conservative, pro-business candidates in local judicial, executive and legislative races nationwide.  We’re talking maybe half a billion dollars from the US Chamber alone.

One of the criticisms I’ve heard of Darcy’s 2006 campaign was her failure to effectively fight back against the many lies that were told by Reichert and his surrogates, but the 2008 campaign seems much more responsive.  In fact, they’ve already cut a new radio ad that will start running tonight on both KOMO and KIRO:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/burner_special_interest_friends_v2.mp3]

It’ll take of lot of work for Darcy to win in November, but job one is refuting the lies before they have time to take hold.

It would have felt good to see Darcy Burner come out of yesterday’s primary with a modest victory.  Good, but not especially comfortable considering the low turnout, partial results and unfathomable dynamics of our new top-two primary.  But at what will likely be less than a three-point deficit to Dave Reichert once all the votes are counted, I’m not feeling especially uncomfortable either.

On the obvious down side, Reichert ended up on top, and by a similar margin as his 2006 general election victory.  But on the up side, Reichert was held significantly below 50 percent… not a great place to be for a two-term incumbent.  Indeed, according to a memo distributed today by Burner pollster Celinda Lake, Reichert’s demonstrated lack of support should be “sobering news” for the incumbent:

[D]espite his turnout advantages, the incumbent has been held under 50 percent of the primary vote, and the combined Democratic vote is greater than the Republican vote. This is sobering news for Reichert. The top two system, which allows for voters to split tickets on the primary ballot, most closely resembles the blanket primary system that prevailed in Washington State prior to 2003. Our research indicates that in the 94 congressional races that took place under a blanket primary between 1982 and 2002, the incumbent failed to register 50 percent of the primary tally in 10 of those contests. In seven of those contests, the challenger went on to victory in November…

Prior results do not guarantee future performance and all that, but it’s hardly a bleak situation for Darcy, who finds herself in a significantly stronger position than she was in at this stage of the 2006 race.  Heading toward November Darcy can expect a resource advantage, a turnout advantage and presidential coattails to help carry her through to victory.  And even yesterday’s results show progress; I don’t know of a single  public or private poll that showed Darcy closer than six points to Reichert in recent months, and yet after only two weeks of advertising (at a cost, I’m guessing, of about $400,000) she’s managed to cut that gap in half.  By comparison, an August 21-22 2006 SurveyUSA poll gave Reichert a 54-41 percent lead, a 13-point margin Darcy eventually whittled down to three by election day.

So yeah, I’d rather be up three points than down, but given all the same caveats I issued in my discussion of the governor’s race, I’m no more or less worried than I was Tuesday morning.  For if there’s a conclusion to be drawn from the primary results, it’s that this race is once again going to come down to the wire.  And that’s something we’ve known all along.

So what explains Dave Reichert’s pro-oil industry energy agenda in the face of skyrocketing fuel costs and the dire consequences of carbon-induced climate change?  Well, maybe we should just ask some of Dave’s pals who set up that lucrative K Street funder for him… you know, energy industry lobbyists like Dan Maloney (American Petroleum Institute), Brett Shogren (Exelon Corp.), Mike Chappell (Edison International) and Matt Lapinski (Frontier Oil)?

I’m just sayin’.

So… Dave Reichert, struggling to keep pace with Darcy Burner’s overwhelming support from individual contributors, turns to a group of high-powered lobbyists for a quick infusion of cash—including lobbyists representing Airbus parent EADS against Boeing in the controversial tanker deal—and what’s the headline in the Seattle Times? “Words fly over lobbyist for Boeing rival at Reichert fundraiser.”

That’s right, EADS lobbyist Mike Chappell writes Reichert a $500 check and the main story here is the accusation itself, with the Times emphasizing that “Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik leaked the EADS lobbyist tie to the online political newspaper Politico.”

“Leaked…?” Really?

leak -verb
9. to disclose secret, esp. official, information anonymously, as to the news media

A) Kaushik is Burner’s communication director; it’s his job to pass information on to the press, even damaging information about her opponent; and B) How exactly do you “leak” information that had already appeared in an article in Roll Call?

All Kaushik did was call Politico’s attention to the fact that an article in Roll Call contradicted editorializing that had appeared in their own publication, causing Politico to write a follow-up story when they determined that the info in Roll Call checked out. And that added tidbit about Chappell writing Reichert a check? That came from good, old fashioned “sleuthing” on the part of the Times reporter Emily Heffter. That’s some “leak.”

Reichert goes begging to lobbyists paid to oppose the interests of his district, and it’s “words flying” that makes the headline, and the Burner campaign’s role in publicizing Reichert’s Airbus connections that makes the lede. And Reichert gets a check from Airbus, but that’s okay, because he says he plans to return it, you know… after he was caught. Jesus… could the Times pedal any softer?

But then, Reichert is the Times’ favorite “conscience driven independent,” so I guess we’re unlikely to see a piece criticizing Reichert for publicly posturing in defense of Boeing against the Alabama/French Connection, and then going back to the other Washington to quietly solicit support from the very people he’s supposedly opposing… folks like EADS lobbyist Chappell, Alabama Aircraft Industries lobbyist Chris Cox, former Tom DeLay henchman (and co-conspirator) Drew Maloney, and the rest of the K Street crowd.

The Times knows damn well how damaging this story really is—hell, it’s exactly crap like this that has destroyed the Republican brand. The “K Street Project,” the “Culture of Corruption,” the cozy relationship between the Republican leadership and their corporate patrons… this is why Democrats took control of both houses in 2006, and this is why they are poised to expand their majority in 2008. And whatever his intentions when he first headed off to Congress, Dave Reichert now finds himself smack dab in the middle of everything that is wrong with the Beltway establishment, totally reliant on (and indebted to) lobbyists and PACs in his desperate efforts to fend off Burner’s challenge.

Darcy Burner on the other hand, with her people-powered politics and her thousands upon thousands of small contributions from individual donors, is indebted to nothing but her own conscience. So if 8th CD voters really want to send somebody to Congress who can truly challenge the corrupting influence of the K Street crowd in both parties, they need to elect a representative who doesn’t have to rely on these very same lobbyists to fund their campaigns. They need to elect Darcy Burner.

Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert released their July fundraising totals today in advance of WA’s August 19 primary, and as reported by Postman (or maybe Emily Heffter, I’m kinda confused) it wasn’t even close.

Rep. Dave Reichert, the two-term Republican incumbent, raised $115,474 during July, compiling $929,113 in cash on hand.

Democratic challenger Darcy Burner raised more — $350,837– during July, and reported having almost $1.5 million in the bank. […] Burner has been outpacing Reichert in fundraising throughout the campaign, but she’s also been spending more.

“Burner raised more” …?  Talk about an understatement.  She raised over three times more.  And while yeah, sure, Burner’s numbers were pumped up by the incredible outpouring of affection and support in the wake of the fire that claimed her home, her cat and all her belongings, Reichert’s numbers are truly pathetic, barely covering his $100K in expenses for the month.

And as to Postman’s (Heffter’s?) assertion that Burner’s “also spending more,” um… no she hasn’t.  So far both campaigns have spent about a million dollars over the cycle, with Reichert actually outspending Burner by a few thousand dollars.

Running for office is hard work, and it’s beginning to look like Reichert just isn’t up to the task.  For example, Reichert relied on PAC money to make up over 55% of his anemic July total, whereas Burner only raised 5% from PACs.  That kind of disparity tells you a lot about both candidates’ work ethic, and their allegiances.

Following up on Darryl’s post, SurveyUSA also came out with polling numbers last night, posting results in the governor’s race, a 49-46 Gregoire lead, right in line with the 47-45 advantage reported by Strategic Vision. Neither pollster sees much movement in this race over recent weeks.

SurveyUSA also polled the 8th CD race, where they find Dave Reichert leading Darcy Burner 50-44, again, virtually unchanged from six weeks ago. I’d be lying if told you I wouldn’t rather see Darcy closing the gap, but she hasn’t yet started advertising, and I honestly doubt if the Reichert camp is taking much comfort in these results. In fact, given the way his campaign has been trying to tamp down expectations for the August primary, I’d sure love to take a gander at Reichert’s internal numbers.

“We wouldn’t be surprised if Darcy took first in the primary,” Reichert spokeswoman Amanda Halligan recently told Roll Call. “Historically, Democrats have had higher turnout in the primaries than Republicans.” This is the same message the Reichert camp pushed yesterday through the Evans-Novak Report, which emphasizes without substantiation that Burner is “heavily favored” in the August primary.

Huh. Really? Well, I suppose… that is, if your idea of “historically” means going back only as far as 2006 ( the only 8th CD race to use the now defunct “pick a party” primary), when Darcy Burner did indeed win the primary 51-49, only to see it flip the other way in November. But I think a more accurate historical perspective would be to look at how the late Rep. Jennifer Dunn fared as an incumbent, under the blanket primary rules our new top-two primary attempts to emulate.

2002	Primary	General
Dunn	64.0%	59.8%
Behrens-Benedict	33.5%	37.3%
2000
Dunn	60.7%	62.2%
Behrens-Benedict	37.1%	35.6%
1998
Dunn	65.6%	59.7%
Behrens-Benedict	34.3%	40.2%

Democrats always have higher turnout in primaries than Republicans? As you can see, history tells us no such thing. In fact, history really doesn’t tell us anything useful about primary vs general turnout patterns considering this is the first ever 8th CD primary to occur in August, not to mention our first ever to use the top-two format.

I don’t know if Reichert’s pre-primary spin that Burner is “heavily favored” is based on sheer bullshit, or on some pretty nasty internal polling. But it sure ain’t based on history.

When you’re the 419th 401st most powerful member of the House of Representatives, chances at the national limelight are few and far between. You must carefully weigh which, of the many pressing issues facing the body politic, you can expend your limited political capital advocating for. You don’t get many chances to shine; you gotta make ’em count.

So it’s sorta fascinating, in a gruesome car wreck kind of way, to see Rep. Dave Reichert (“Conscience Driven Independent™”-WA) in the pages of The Hill’s Congress Blog on Friday, taking a bold stance against the impeachment of President Bush:

As one of the nine Republicans crossing party lines yesterday on the vote moving Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, I cast my vote not to hold hearings, but to move the bill off the House Floor so the House could focus on more important issues….

There are less than 30 legislative days left in the Congressional calendar. And this is what we are voting on? No wonder the country has lost faith in Congress. There are so many things that we need to take action on and impeachment votes that are guaranteed not to pass is not one of them.

Now, it’s pretty hard to argue with the assertion that members of the House of Representatives should, you know, do stuff. Although a reasonable observer might add that, with fewer than 30 legislative days left in his fourth year of Congressional service, Sheriff Dave has thus selected as good a time as any to start. Had he actually started to do anything.

Plus, to be sure, no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors the Bush cabal has committed — and they are undoubtably legion — genuine impeachment, based on a full accounting of those crimes, at this point isn’t even physically possible; Republicans and Democrats alike have so run the clock out on Bush’s second term without mounting any sort of serious investigation of their crimes that at this point none could be conducted in time. Politically, it’s preposterous to think it could or would happen anyway. Neither party’s leadership is interested in turning over that rock.

So why is Reichert wasting his time writing about it?

More to the point, why is Reichert wasting his miniscule influence defending a widely reviled administration he’s supposed to be independent of? (Except for fundraisers.) (And his voting record.) And why does he think it’s a waste of time to investigate some of the crimes that have helped create those crises (illegal wars, soaring energy costs, an economy crippled by deregulated and corrupt financial dealings) he’s failed to help address for four years?

And if crimes leading to multiple crises crippling the country aren’t worth tying up the House’s time, why did his party think impeachment over lying about a blow job was worth bringing Congress to a full stop for over a year?

You’d almost think Reichert was using a meaningless vote to try to score exactly the sort of cheap political points he was allegedly deploring, on behalf of an administration he is allegedly independent of. But then, that’s exactly the sort of expediency-driven political hackery we’ve come to expect from the Seattle Times’ favorite “moderate.”