Seattle Times endorses DelBene, disses Reichert

No surprise after the primary endorsement, but the Seattle Times officially endorsed Democrat Suzan DelBene today:

The Seattle Times endorses Democrat Suzan DelBene. The technology entrepreneur from Medina is politically untested but offers tremendous promise.

And on that we agree: DelBene has tremendous upside. She’s smart, she’s energetic, she’s thoughtful. She’s probably not as progressive as me on some issues, but then neither is her district, so I can live with that.

Reichert, on the other hand, no upside at all. What you see is what you get: a back-bencher warming the seat for Republicans until heir-apparent Reagan Dunn outgrows his political peach fuzz.

So here’s hoping the Seattle Times editorial board is more influential with voters than I give them credit for.


  1. 3


    I am convinced they are motivated by a singular desire to fuck with Goldy.
    They have no influence, they might as well get something out of endorsing somebody.

  2. 4

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    Be sure to tell the guys down at the market to wrap the fish with the endorsement on the outside tomorrow.

  3. 5

    proud leftist spews:

    Even wingnuts can’t claim Reichert has an upside. They just want him back because he’ll do whatever the GOP leadership will tell him to do. He’s a reliable Storm Trooper. Just like the rest of them . . .

  4. 6

    czechsaaz spews:

    Yep, in the anti-democrat, anti incumbant year, if Reichert still wins it won’t count for anything. But when the S.T. abandons the “green river killer catcher,” the guy they kept in office last time, UnderArmor man, it says a lot.

  5. 7

    Gen spews:

    I don’t suppose they asked him how much his brain damage cost the taxpayers? You know, the guy that’s been on tax payer funded healthcare all his working life, but doesn’t think anyone else should have….

  6. 8

    pedophile spews:

    I think Dunn is going to bypass the 8th CD altogether. He’ll run for AG in 2012, and win. Next stop, Senate or Governor.

  7. 9

    proud leftist spews:

    The Times plainly has lost patience with Reichert, but the endorsement is full of praise for Jennifer Dunn–someone on the editorial board has a boner for her, even long after her death. This, for example: “Reichert’s leadership after six years has failed to invoke the same shrewd, bipartisan tone demonstrated by Dunn.”

    Really? Jennifer Dunn was bipartisan? And shrewd? Really? She was a partisan hack for the GOP, who was attractive. Nothing else. She named her son after Ronald Fucking Reagan (who produced the ruin this country is currently experiencing by shredding the social compact we’d been living by, and which had served us so well). Deifying Jennifer Dunn is sheer nuttiness.

  8. 10


    @9 By the way bi-partisanship is dead. I mean really dead. Republicans must be treated like our nation’s enemies. Just like they treat Obama, and treated Bill Clinton.

    And to think. Reichert’s only claim to fame was not catching the Green River Killer! That and admitting they count the votes…..

  9. 11

    proud leftist spews:

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: leftists must arm. Our weakness has always been a belief in the power of reason. That works among us, but the right doesn’t do reason. They don’t do facts. Empiricism is voodoo to them. So, simply, we must arm.

  10. 13

    Steve spews:

    “leftists must arm”

    heh- And here I’ve been thinking that I should lighten up.

    Yes, I agree that’s sound advice. But I believe it must still be done accompanied with an intent to somehow de-escalate the intensity of the situation. Somehow, someway, we have to do this. If we don’t find a way, then I’d say that we’ll all soon find ourselves in a world of shit.

    “Our weakness has always been a belief in the power of reason.”

    What you’ve said here is something I’ve expressed before as “Libs talk too damned much”. When I came here I saw what was going on and I became determined to provide what I thought at the time was what missing by the left – a dose of meanness So I’d shit on troll’s face and taunt him, laugh at him for fucking goats, and then tell him to go fuck himself if he didn’t like the new program. And yet three people I’ve treated this way have become friends. How did this happen? I didn’t do this alone. In each instance, it took the both of us. But I really don’t know how it happened other maybe that we were just open to it and eventually discovered some common ground or maybe just mutual respect. I know that can say that I do respect these people.

    Perhaps my initial, mean-spirited approach was right for the time, but things have only gotten worse. The fear and hate have only intensified. “Leftists must arm.” How the hell do we end this madness? Sometimes I believe that this is the only discussion worth having, the rest being peripheral stuff created out of outdated paradigms that, for whatever value they once had, now only serve to divide us.

    “leftists must arm”

    Sigh! I’ve heard Roger say it many times, but somehow when it comes from you, proud leftist, it gives me pause. Yes, we must arm. If not to find peace, then to at least go out in a blaze of glory, taking everybody with us. My own Christian faith tells me that the former might possibly please God, the latter, most likely not.

  11. 14

    greg spews:

    It seems like some people on this Blog like proud leftist have literally gone off the deep-end. They are against the war but want to arm here against fellow citizens. At least steve is a voice of reason. I think the anger is a result of sadly watching President Obama and others blow the opportunity of a lifetime to actually lead this country in the proper direction. When you have advisers like hotheaded Rahm Emanual and David Axelrod firing hot rhetoric daily themselves or thru surrogates, no wonder things are where they are today. We never made the transition from campaigning to leading and being in charge.

    Now, it’s likely too late for awhile. We have a lot of issues going against us that will obviously hurt us this election and in 2012 Senate & Presidential and even into the 2014 Senate Races.

    I’m with you steve….sigh!

  12. 15

    greg spews:

    I really don’t see how President Obama is going to help any of our candidates. You have one right-winger who constantly posts Rasmussen. While I think Rasmussen occasionally has a slight bias, it’s fairly close. For what it’s worth, here is today’s numbers

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 (see trends).

    Homeowners have become even more pessimistic. Thirty-two percent (32%) expect the value of their home to fall over the coming year while just 21% expect to see an increase in value. Additionally, the Fed Ex Fact of the Week shows that 47% of investors say their investments are worth less today than they were a year ago.

    It’s not good. I think it is all about leadership or a lack thereof. We made a mistake by continue to bash our perceived enemies. We needed to convince them not crucify them. But we failed.

    This Blog is actually depressing. I’m on to more positive things. Nice chatting with you guys. You have your hands full steve.

  13. 16

    rhp6033 spews:

    “…Reichert, on the other hand, no upside at all….”

    One of the more difficult (and sad) things I’ve had to deal with is when you realize that an employee has reached the ceiling of their potential, either due to lack of ability or lack of motivation. You wanted them to grow into the job, and then advance to the next one, but somewhere along the line they stopped at 50% to 70% along the way, and they are never going to go any further. You don’t really want to fire them – by then they’ve been with the company at least a couple of years, and it’s not that they’ve actually done anything wrong. The best you can do (for them) is shift them into a position with less responsibility, so their 50% equals close to 100% in their new position.

    With Dave Reichert, after three terms he hasn’t progressed at all in any visable measure. He hasn’t shown us any ability to get significant legislation passed for his district (how’s that “gang initiative in the suburbs” going, Dave?). He hasn’t shown he can cross the aisle and make meaninful alliances to accomplish anything worthwhile.

    If anything, he’s learned a bit better the skills of professional (ongoing) campaigning and fundraising. But he’s squandered even that small advantage by assuming everyone in the audience is friendly to him and wouldn’t record and release his comments, which is a really rookie mistake. (Lesson for future politicians: Rule 1: Assume every microphone is on. Rule 2: Even if you don’t see a microphone, assume there is one within speaking distance. Rule 3: Make sure every conference call is completely disconnected before having an internal discussion).

    Unlike some previous elections, I haven’t seen any Republicans flying in to give Reichert some support. It looks like they are tired of hearing him whine, once again, about how everone needs to help him win. A three-term Congressman needs to carry his own weight, and raise money and rally support for his colleagues who are challenging seats held by the other party. With Reichert, it’s always been the other way around.

    I’ve always feared that DelBene waited too long to come out of the gates with her advertising campaign. When going against a sitting Congressman, name recognition is important. This endorsement may give her a further boost, but she’s got to hit hard in the next two weeks – after that, a good share of the ballots will already be in the mail.

  14. 17

    czechsaaz spews:

    Anyone else find Reichert’s TV spot laughable?

    “We thought it would be different. We thought things would change. Send Congress a message. Send me back so we can change and be different.”

    Or words to that effect.

  15. 18

    Walk the talk spews:

    @14 It seems like some people on this Blog like proud leftist have literally gone off the deep-end. They are against the war but want to arm here against fellow citizens.

    Don’t kid yourself. It’s anonymous bluster and he won’t be leading the charge himself anytime soon – when he rants “leftists should arm” he means OTHER leftists should arm. PL is an attorney with a comfortable gig. Any public disclosure of this position would be bad for that license and, ergo, for that affluent life style. An hour on the streets would quickly convince PL of the error of his ways and chase him right back to the comfort of his home theater.

    Of course, PL can prove me wrong . . . he can cut the blather on HA and lead the way – in public – and walk his talk.

    Big hat, no cattle.

  16. 19

    don spews:


    Exactly. And at the end of the ad, the woman onscreen appears to label DelBene as the pragmatist and Riechert as the idealist. And that’s a good thing for Riechert?

  17. 20

    greg spews:

    Proud Leftist is an attorney?
    I guess that shouldn’t surprise me. He takes such strong positions with words. I feel that is part of the problem. Too many attorneys running this country with harsh words while average working Americans suffer. Attorneys claim to be for the little guy. Really? Haven’t accomplished much with all those harsh words have they.
    We will see America ping-pong back & forth between Republicans and Democrats until one of the parties grabs hold of the real issues like Jobs in America in the private sector. We desperately need leadership, not more attorney harsh words.

    This Blog is pretty sick. Good-bye all.
    Enjoy trading harsh words & accomplishing absolutely nothing like you have obviously been doing without me.

  18. 22

    Clinging to my guns and religion spews:

    You HA dweebs are so naive about the ways of Pelosi’s congress. For 4 of the 6 years he served in the House, Reichert has been in the minority party. Pelosi will NEVER let a bill he sponsors get to the floor – she’s not going to give ANY Republican a chance to claim an accomplishment while she’s speaker, particularly one who represents a district the dems have been eyeing. Fortunately, it looks like Pelosi’s gavel days are numbered.

    During his first term, while in the majority, Reichert chaired a Homeland Security subcommittee and was instrumental in passing big legislation supporting first responders. He also co-sponsored and championed many environmental bills that became law directly benefiting his district and the state, including Wildsky.

    Less than three months from now, sanity will be restored in the House and Pelosi will be just a minority member of Congress. By then, I doubt she’ll be any more effective than you claim Reichert is now.

  19. 23


    He also co-sponsored and championed many environmental bills that became law directly benefiting his district and the state, including Wildsky.

    Co-sponsored, yes.. Championed? – only in the the mind of an knee-jerk apologist for the incredible shrinking brain man.

  20. 24

    rhp6033 spews:

    # 22: I’m still under-impressed with Reichert’s first term in Congress. He took a lot of credit for Wildsky, without noting that it had a lot of backing from the Democratic office-holders in the state. And at the same time he was trumpeting Wildsky, he was obstructing efforts to protect other areas from development. Aside from that, in the Homeland Security gig he pretty much did what Rove & the Republican leadership told him to do, no real leadership there.

    And do you not recognize the hypocracy of supporting Reichert on the basis that “he is in the minority party”, when every Republican campaign this season has been blaming Democrats for problems which arose while Republicans had control of both Congress and the White House? Rossi even blames Murray for “eighteen years” of mismangement in Washington, when she’s been in the majority party less than four of those years.

    Oh, I got a flyer from some Republican candidate for the state legislature. He promises to give us jobs, stop foreclosures, lower taxes, eliminate the deficit, and to “restore the Constitution”. I’m wondering if he’s referring to the state or federal Constitution or budget (he doesn’t say), and how he expects to solve national problems from Olympia.

    It’s pretty clear that Rove and his minions got together some focus groups, identified the “hot button” issues, and instructed Republican campaign managers to keep repeating those key words, regardless if they make any sense in the context of the position being sought, the positions of the candidates, or the qualifications or records of the candidates. It’s all utter nonsense.

  21. 25

    LD spews:

    Rove-backed group raised $13M since attacks from Obama

    Collegio said the attacks had only driven interest in the group’s activities, and that the increased fundraising would allow Crossroads to spend an additional $10 million in House races, and $5 million more in Senate races.

    I Like Obama, he makes election winning easy! Keep up the good work. And no raises for SSI for the second year should provide more than enough votes for a change.

    Change is Gooooooood! And commmin to your neighborhood Nov 2nd.

  22. 27


    And no raises for SSI for the second year should provide more than enough votes for a change.

    Wow! I guess Republicans are going to run on giving more money to seniors. Way to buy votes righties!

    Maybe you’ll do better than the prescription drug benefit. You know the one you said would cost 300 billion – a bald faced lie!

    And of course you’ll push tax cuts.

    How “fiscally responsible”…

  23. 28

    proud leftist spews:

    Steve @ 13
    I am, of course, speaking metaphorically. I agree with you that the harsh partisan divide that currently confronts us poses a huge obstacle to this country’s future. When politicians choose positions purely for what they see as partisan gain, rather than what is good for the country, then we are plainly in trouble. I primarily blame the GOP for the current divide. They are a party of flamethrowers, currently lacking any responsible leadership. It is very difficult to reason with this breed; indeed, it may be impossible. I get frustrated with Democrats trying to work across the aisle with those who just keep moving the aisle rightward. I think Obama shares this frustration. Until the GOP starts to show some maturity, I think the Ds should forget about trying to work with them. That said, given how the Rs just might have a majority in the House come January, an inability to work with the Rs may mean that nothing at all gets done.

  24. 29


    When right wingers “open carry” at a legally safe distance from a political rally it’s called asserting their 2nd amendment rights to bear arms.

    If liberals did that it would be called leftist thuggery.

    There’s no compromising with the right. You must defeat them, again and again.

  25. 30

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    @25 LD on 10/13/2010 at 9:55 am,

    Rove-backed group raised $13M since attacks from Obama…Change is Gooooooood!

    Well, if Rove and his millionaire billionaire buddies win, then there is no chance we’ll change to stuff like this again:

    The enormous mortgage-bond scandal

    This is where things get positively evil. The investment banks didn’t mind buying up loans they knew were bad, because they considered themselves to be in the moving business rather than the storage business. They weren’t going to hold on to the loans: they were just going to package them up and sell them on to some buy-side sucker.

    In fact, the banks had an incentive to buy loans they knew were bad. Because when the loans proved to be bad, the banks could go back to the originator and get a discount on the amount of money they were paying for the pool. And the less money they paid for the pool, the more profit they could make when they turned it into mortgage bonds and sold it off to investors.

    More Rovian deregulation please!

    I’m short your house, LD. :-D

  26. 31

    LD spews:


    And was it not Barney frank and the democrats that demanded Freddie and Fanny loan money to low income people for house loans that most could not afford to pay and hence when the bubble burst were a great deal responsible for the losses in those programs.

  27. 32

    LD spews:

    U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, immersed in one of the toughest political fights of his career, took a free private jet to the Virgin Islands courtesy of a Maine congresswoman’s billionaire fiance — whose company received a $200 million federal bailout, the Herald has learned.

    Frank, who’s facing feisty Republican challenger Sean Bielat, flew to the tropical paradise for a vacation in 2009 on a $25 million jet owned by Paloma Partners honcho S. Donald Sussman, the fiance of U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). Paloma Securities — a subsidiary of Sussman’s Greenwich, Conn.-based hedge fund — received $200 million in 2009 as part of the $180 billion federal bailout of troubled insurance giant AIG, records show

    And you you gotta love how the dollars flow

  28. 34

    Buckeye Bobo spews:


    During his first term, while in the majority, Reichert chaired a Homeland Security subcommittee and was instrumental in passing big legislation supporting first responders.

    That bill was going to happen anyway, and had nothing to do with Reichert, I saw him upclose and personal trying to conduct hearings on that committee. He was constantly bailed out by the leadership, and was so uncomforatble with a gavel it was absurd. On that project the GOP leadership gave him a lot of facetime, so people would think “Sheriff Homeland Security wow”. If he were smarter about politics he could have done something with that moment, but he is simply not cut of our for a legislative environment.

  29. 36

    rhp6033 spews:

    31: Utter rubbish.

    You are trying to combine the rightwing attempts to blame the CRA of the 1970’s, which prevented banks from “red-lining” minority neighborhoods out of home loans, for the complete lack of oversight and regulation under the Bush administration, some thirty years later.

    The causes of the real estate bubble, and the resulting collapse, have nothing to do with banks being “forced” to lend money to the poor who couldn’t afford it. Banks were falling all over themselves to sell as many loans as possible, they were making huge profits selling “sub-par” loans, even pushing them on those who would qualify for conventional financing.

    And the foreclosure rates show that it is actually the wealthy who are abandoning their homes to foreclosure in greater proportions than the poor. It seems that once the loan is “underwater”, the wealthy consider it a bad business deal and cut their losses by getting out in a hurry. They still have jobs and savings they can use to buy another home in the near future, despite the default. For the poor, however, their home is their protection against real homelessness, and they will fight as long as possible to try to keep it.