by Goldy — ,
Wow… those Ron Paul folks sure do hate McCain…
It’s a pretty powerful, compelling and credible collection of clips. (Except for that stuff at the end about McCain collaborating with the North Vietnamese—he was tortured after all—but if Republicans want to Swift Boat one of their own, I say more power to them.)
by Goldy — ,
I usually don’t fill my tank until the dummy light comes on, but I topped off Saturday morning at $4.19 a gallon after crude rose over $10 a barrel on Friday. By Sunday, the same station was charging $4.29. That’s pretty much in line with a new AAA survey that pegs the average price of gas in WA state at $4.22 a gallon.
That’s 44 cents higher than a month ago, 95 cents higher than a year ago and 20 cents higher than the national average.
I’m guessing the only person surprised by $4-plus a gallon gas is President Bush, who back in February seemed genuinely shocked and surprised by the suggestion.
If this is the kind of energy security leadership we get from a President who fancies himself an oilman, I cringe at the thought of the kind of national security leadership we might get from a man who fancies himself a military expert.
by Goldy — ,
It takes the UK’s Daily Mail to report on the presidential campaign story the US media refuses to cover:
McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.
But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.
And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.
She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.
But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier … In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.
Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.
And so McCain did what any honorable, loving, family man would do: he immediately started cheating on his faithful wife before eventually dumping her to marry a beautiful heiress 18 years his junior.
For her part, Carol McCain sounds philosophical:
“My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens…it just does.”
But former friends and acquaintances are not so forgiving….
They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.
Of course this is America, where everyone has the right to pursue happiness, and if McCain couldn’t be happy married to a woman who wasn’t tall, beautiful and wealthy, then perhaps it was best for him, Carol and their children to end the marriage. But really… enough of this family values character crap for a man who abandoned his crippled wife when she needed him most. One can assume the only reason he’s remained married to Cindy this long is that she’s managed to retain her height, looks, wealth and bladder.
In the words of Ross Perot (who paid Carol’s extensive medical bills while her husband was a prisoner of war):
“McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.
“After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.”
A history most Americans will never learn.
by Goldy — ,
BlueNC (via Postman) picks Rep. Adam Smith as the winner of the longshot category in the Democratic VP sweepstakes:
An early Obama backer and effective surrogate he’s shown he can handle himself well with the media.
Really? Postman should know better than to repeat speculation like this without reporting the fatal biographical detail that absolutely removes Rep. Smith for consideration for the VP slot: he’s authored a couple posts here on HA.
And as everybody knows, foul-mouthed amen bloggers like me and Rep. Smith simply cannot be taken seriously.
by Goldy — ,
Somewhat confused by this morning’s Seattle Times editorial, “Expand GI benefits,” I sat down to pick apart its arguments, only to find… there aren’t any. At least none that adequately defend a central part of their thesis.
Let the fisking begin.
A VASTLY improved and expanded package of GI educational benefits is caught in an unseemly standoff between Congress and the White House. Both manage to come off as penny-pinching ingrates.
I think it fair to conclude from the lede that the Times has two theses: 1) expanding GI educational benefits is a good thing (a sentiment with which I heartily agree); and 2) the “ingrates” in both Congress and the White House are equally to blame. Now let’s see how they go about defending their theses.
The benefits have not been updated for a generation, and the expense of the 10-year package is $52 billion — about five months of fighting the Iraq war.
Chalk that up as an adequate argument in defense of Thesis 1. I haven’t double-checked their facts, but throwing caution to the wind, we’ll just take them at their word this time.
The federal government is bleeding red ink, but a mix of Republicans and Democrats has suddenly gotten fussy about how the benefits are dealt with in the budget.
Really? Do tell.
President Bush threatens a veto because he objects to the benefit being included with his request for extra money for the war.
And the Democratic Congress?
Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., claim re-enlistment rates would suffer if the maximum benefits were available after three years.
And the Democratic Congress?
The GOP presidential nominee wants those with more years of service to receive full benefits. Others counter the expanded benefits will boost enlistments.
And the Democratic Congress?
The Democratic Congress passed the new GI Bill, against the Republican objections, and now President Bush threatens to veto it. And this makes the current Congress a bunch of “penny-pinching ingrates,” how?
Congress and the White House have shameful records of providing for the welfare of the men and women in the U.S. armed forces.
True, but Congress has mostly been in the hands of Republicans for the past decade or so, so it seems kinda odd to blame Democratic members of this current Congress—you know, the Congress that just passed the expanded GI benefits the Times wants—for the admittedly “shameful record” of members who came before them, both Democrats and Republicans alike.
They were sent to war lightly equipped and have returned home wounded in body and spirit to often inadequate care.
Absolutely true, but I understand that as a defense of Thesis 1, not Thesis 2.
Our leaders ask extraordinary things of our all-volunteer military. Multiple overseas tours are routine, rotation cycles have been sped up, tours were extended to 15 months, and exhausted troops shuttle between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Again, a reasonable defense of Thesis 1.
Let the pragmatic at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue call the new GI educational benefits a cost of doing business.
Can’t argue with that. But it might useful, for the sake of argument, if the Times would bother to explain what was so unpragmatic about Congress passing the exact benefits their editorial demands?
For the rest of the nation, these overdue improvements represent both a humble thank you for sacrifices made and a measure of tribute for keeping a universal military draft at bay.
Turns out, they’re not so bad at explicating that Thesis 1 stuff after all. But I’m still waiting for a defense of Thesis 2.
Congress and the White House ask a lot of the military, but are only too willing to show their appreciation with rhetoric.
Um… and I hate to sound like a broken record here, but… Congress passed the GI Bill. How is that just rhetoric?
I think—and given the muddled nature of the editorial I’m not exactly sure—that the Times is criticizing Congress for attaching the GI Bill to a supplemental defense appropriations bill. That’s one of President Bush’s own complaints, though he objects to it because it makes the measure harder to veto. Standing on its own, the GI Bill wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance of a veto override, so it seems odd that the Times would object to such a pragmatic political maneuver at the same time it bemoans the lack of pragmatism “at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”
I suppose the Times’ editors might have some other gripes about Congress and its Democratic leaders’ course of action on the GI Bill, but they haven’t bothered to voice them in this particular editorial. Likewise lacking is any constructive suggestion as to how Congress might overcome the White House’s objections, or move effectively forward in the face of a Presidential veto.
So why would the Times go out of its way to assign equal blame to Congress as an institution (and in such an unsupported manner), when it is clear that it is the White House and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill who threaten to block the GI Bill? Because it relieves them of the burden of calling out Rep. Dave Reichert, who voted against the GI Bill on the grounds that it levied a 0.47 percent tax surcharge on the portion of household income above $1 million a year.
Of course, my thesis is pure supposition, but as such it is at least as well supported as those of the Times.
by Goldy — ,
Late Friday afternoon I received the following email from TVW President Greg Lane:
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
As the President of TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Television Network, I am writing to inform you that we are contacting YouTube and requesting they remove video clips posted which violate our copyright.
Because our commitment is to “gavel-to-gavel” coverage of statewide public affairs, TVW does not allow editing of our programming, and our copyright generally requires prior approval before any use can be made.
TVW’s unique contribution to the public debate in our state is to bring the entirety of events such as debates, conventions and legislative proceedings before citizens. As a result, we do allow individuals to link to complete TVW events. For example, if you would like to link to the entire event you posted on your blog on June 4, you can find it here, and you are very welcome to link to the complete event. If you would like links to other events, you can find them by searching TVW’s website. Our staff is also available to provide assistance if needed.
Thank you for your cooperation. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about our policy.
Regards,
Greg Lane
President
Notice that Lane (formerly Republican AG Rob McKenna’s chief of staff) didn’t ask me to remove the clip, he simply informed me that they were going straight to YouTube. Well, I wasn’t in a very good mood at the time, and was in a rush to head out the door, so I just quickly and curtly replied that if YouTube pulled the clip “I suppose I’ll just have to serve it myself and leave it to you to sue me.”
And that’s exactly what I intend to do, more or less… though I probably should have explicated my reasons so as not to come off as angry or impolite. My bad.
The clip in question consists of only 37 seconds out of an hour and five minutes of total coverage, and while I sympathize with TVW’s mission, if there is ever an example of the “fair use” doctrine, this is it. I have updated the original post to include a copyright notice and a link to the source video, and if I’m forced to repost I suppose I’ll try to edit the clip down to under 30 seconds. But that’s about as far as I’m willing to go without a court order.
TVW can write whatever it wants into its license agreement, but they can’t automatically impose more stringent copyright restrictions than provided by law. I signed no contract nor agreed to any license; I merely downloaded the WMV file from the TVW website (using perfectly legal software), excerpted a contiguous clip, and uploaded it to YouTube. My actions were both ethical and legal.
There are reasons why the courts have carved out, and Congress eventually codified, a fair use exemption for the purposes of news reporting and commentary, no doubt one of them being that an informed electorate, absolutely crucial to the functioning of our democracy, has needs that clearly trump the prerogatives of the copyright holder. And there is no better indication of the newsworthiness of Dave Reichert’s embarrassing speech within the context of the current election cycle than the fact that his campaign (or his party) has obviously prompted TVW to seek removal of this easily accessible clip, knowing full well that few voters will bother to sit through the entire hour-plus of tedious speechifying.
The disputed clip is far from the only TVW material on YouTube; hell, I’ve had another TVW clip in my publicly viewable YouTube gallery for over a year and a half! Clearly, TVW does not actively search YouTube for potential copyright violations—as far as I can tell they only go after those clips they’re pressured to go after.
Somebody complained to TVW, and it’s not hard to guess who or why. Reichert’s campaign wants to prevent us from easily comparing and contrasting his words before a gathering of the party elite, with his promises to voters, because these words are damaging. And the best way to hide Reichert’s public words from the public is to keep them buried 41 minutes into a 65 minute piece of insufferably boring streaming video.
Of course, if Reichert isn’t embarrassed to have his speech widely disseminated, he could always waive the extraordinary protections TVW is seeking on his behalf, and publicly urge them to grant reproduction without restriction, rather than privately nudging them to harass me for exercising my legal rights. But I’m not holding my breath.
So for now, enjoy Reichert promising to cut Medicare… while you can:
(©2006 TVW. View full source here.)
UPDATE:
YouTube finally pulled the clip, so I’ve uploaded it to LiveLeak. (I’m willing to play this game as long as TVW is.)
by Goldy — ,
“The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States. Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.
I have served in the Senate with him for four years, I have been in this campaign with him for sixteen months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in twenty-two debates. I’ve had a front row seat to his candidacy and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit. In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American Dream. As a community organizer and State Senate and as a United States Senator, he has dedicated himself to insuring the dream is realized and in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process, and invested in our common future. Now when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House and make sure we have a President who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity and progress. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do by insuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.”
Ah well, so much for Republican dreams of a divided Democratic Party. I guess Republicans will just have to run on their merits, rather than counting on the Democrats to self-destruct, thus electing McCain by default.
by Goldy — ,
McCain in hot water over lobster rumor!
by Goldy — ,
Democrats Work is bringing Gen. Wes Clark into one lucky congressional district to participate in a community service project, and today is your last day to vote for Darcy Burner and WA-08. I’m hearing rumors that she is neck in neck with Charlie Brown in CA-04, so if you haven’t already voted in this round, please vote for Darcy now, and bring Gen. Clark in WA-08!
by Goldy — ,
As much as I hate to question the judgment of Seattle’s most objective journalist, I couldn’t help but be taken aback by David Postman’s recent post: “Reichert gets Dems help on wilderness bill.”
Postman asserts that by garnering the co-sponsorhip of Jay Inslee and Norm Dicks on his wilderness bill, Dave Reichert has made any attempt to question his green credentials a “tough argument.” Okay. I’ve disagreed with Postman before. No biggie.
But how does Postman, a self-proclaimed champion of fairness and balance, present the tough arguments of those of us who dare to challenge his thesis? With a big, fat, editorial caveat:
But the campaign of Reichert’s Democratic opponent, Darcy Burner, and her amen bloggers have called the bill a cynical attempt at green-washing.
“Amen bloggers” …? Really?
Postman’s got it half right, but what really makes it so tough for us to argue against the Reichert mythology is when media gatekeepers like Postman intentionally undermine our credibility before presenting our rebuttal.
The implication is clear. Postman… he’s a serious blogger. Joel Connelly, whose blog post he cites in support of his thesis… he’s a serious blogger. But amen bloggers like me and Dan Kirkdorffer and our colleagues, well… we’re just goddamn partisans whose work you can pretty much dismiss without consideration… no matter how well reasoned or how well supported by the facts.
Obviously, I find Postman’s brushoff a tad irritating, but not having benefited from a proper J-school education myself, perhaps I don’t fully understand the finer nuances of his profession? So I’m hoping Postman can explain to me, in the abstract, from his journalistic perspective, what exactly the difference is between an opinion expressed by a columnist like Joel (or an editorial writer like Kate Riley) and that of a lowly blogger like me?
I mean, an opinion is an opinion, right? Is a newspaper columnist inherently more credible because he’s paid to write his opinions, while I just spew mine for free? If I were paid $90,000 a year to write my opinions, would I suddenly be harder to dismiss? Or do I have to be paid by the right people, say some corporate media conglomerate, or perhaps a fifth-generation newspaper family that claims gravitas as a birthright, like some Lamarckian adaptation?
Surely it can’t be the fact that we express opinions that makes us amen bloggers so unreliable, as Postman himself cited Joel’s opinion as definitive support of his thesis. Neither can it be the mere medium that is in question, print vs. online, as in this particular instance all three of us are peddling our work via blogs. So is Postman implying that it is our proud partisanship that costs us our credibility, while it is his and Joel’s vaunted impartiality that secures their own?
Such an implication would leave me even more confused, because doesn’t the mere act of having an opinion imply some sort of bias or partisan leaning? Isn’t the explicit role of the columnist to express his opinions, freely informed by personal bias as well as the facts? Indeed, Joel describes himself as an environmentalist; doesn’t that make him a partisan too? And while I understand that reporters like Postman jealously guard their appearance of impartiality, wasn’t his elitist dismissal of other bloggers as “amen” an act of editorializing that reveals a personal bias of his own?
And finally, you can’t get much more partisan than the candidates themselves, and yet reporters routinely regurgitate their pronouncements and public statements without prepending a cynical asterisk.
So if it’s not our opinions, it’s not our medium, and it’s not our partisanship that automatically undermines our credibility, I can only assume that Postman’s obvious disdain for us amen bloggers comes from the quality of our work itself. In which case I’d argue that he owes it to us (not to mention his readers) to critique and refute our work before dismissively brushing it off as unworthy of serious consideration, because when Postman implies that Joel is credible but we automatically are not, or that Reichert’s motives should be taken at face value while ours most definitely shouldn’t, well I can’t help but take that as a personal slight especially in the absence of any serious effort on his part to back up his assertions… you know, apart from the occasional characterization of me as a drunkard, a hypocrite or a knee-jerk lackey.
The other bloggers are fully capable of defending themselves, but my question for Postman is, what is it that I have written to earn such disrespect? When I accused Reichert of bragging about bringing home earmarks in one piece of franked mail, while bragging about opposing them in another… was I wrong? When I attacked Reichert for promising to cut Medicare when speaking before fellow Republicans, but promising to defend it when franking his constituents… did I mislead my readers, deliberately or otherwise? I’m asking, because if I’m so wrong so much of the time you’d think a simple refutation would come as easily as a dismissive wave of the hand.
Have I proven to be dishonest or dishonorable? Have I been a poor political analyst? Have you found the quality of my prose to be incoherent, unintelligent, uninformed or otherwise wanting when compared to the standard we’ve come to expect from our city’s two dailies? Because if so, the least you could do is show me the courtesy of critiquing my writing and refuting my arguments before blithely dismissing me as just an “amen blogger.”
Come on David, cite a few examples. Show what liars we are. Prove to the world why we cannot be trusted. I betcha you can’t, because while opinions and interpretations can be partisan, facts cannot, and as Dan has proven, my god do we bloggers labor over getting our facts straight.
Which is why, I guess, so many of us found your characterization of us as “amen bloggers” so frustrating, if not downright offensive. Like the lazy trolls who, incapable of actually refuting my arguments, point to my occasional use of foul language as reason alone to dismiss me, you have seized upon our outspoken partisanship as an opportunity to be equally curt and scornful. But if we are relevant enough to be publicly dissed, aren’t we relevant enough to be told the reasons why? Is our work really that lacking, or is there some other, more personal reason that causes you to show us so little respect?
Which brings us back to Joel Connelly, who on this issue I have no compunction in saying is flat-out wrong. Joel pines for a romanticized past in which the Republican Party truly embraced environmentalism, and in which the mantle of bipartisanship was more than just a last ditch rhetorical refuge for the electorally impaired. Reichert’s green credentials don’t pass the laugh test, and I’ve told Joel this to his face in no uncertain words. He thinks my unforgiving partisanship is dangerous, mean spirited and counterproductive. I think his desperate longing for bipartisanship is naive. And yet Joel frequents Drinking Liberally, engages us in debate and joins us on our podcasts because despite our differences we like and respect each other.
Likewise, I have repeatedly professed my respect for Postman and his work… a respect that clearly is not reciprocated. No, he was so concerned with dissing us bloggers that I wonder if he even bothered reading his own post?
Why would someone with such sterling environmental credentials like Inslee, or a congressman who has no worry about re-election, like Dicks, agree to co-sponsor something if they thought it was designed only to help Reichert’s re-election prospects?
Duh… um… because they genuinely support expanding the wilderness area, regardless of Reichert’s motives? You gotta admit, it’s a possibility. (Do they teach that in J-school… objectively establishing one’s thesis by asking rhetorical questions?)
Reichert had been frustrated that he wasn’t getting any co-sponsors from the delegation.
You don’t just “get” co-sponsors, you do the hard work of actively seeking them out. Which I guess explains why seven months later, Inslee was the first co-sponsor to sign on. Hell, Reichert hasn’t even bothered to get the support of a single Republican colleague. (Or is evaluating Reichert’s competence as a legislator off-limits during an election year?)
See how much I respect you David? Enough to actually bother to critique your work, instead of just insulting it. Think of it as tough love.
Yeah, I know… it’s an awfully long post in response to a single word, but I’m just plain tired of tiptoeing around the fragile egos of Postman and a handful of his peers who insist on taking every critique of them or their institutions as a personal insult. Do they have any idea how sensitive they come off? Do they know how many times I’ve been embargoed on a story with the specific instruction not to post until Postman or some other journalist publishes first, out of concern that if I break the story on HA, the “real” journalists will willfully ignore it?
That’s what we’ve come to, a point where media pettiness has led some in the progressive community to seriously question whether they’ll face retaliation from reporters and editors for openly allying with bloggers like me. And that, by the way David, is why I tend to relentlessly focus on stories like Reichert’s abusive and dishonest franking practices… because nobody else will! You don’t think the Burner campaign and the state party don’t shop around their stories before eventually sending them my way? We’re not an amen chorus, we’re the media outlet of last resort for progressive campaigns and causes that can’t get the time of day from a press corps obsessed with sex scandals and horse races.
Unlike some bloggers on the right who ridiculously claim to be “small ‘l’ libertarians” while maintaining an active role in their local Republican Party, I have always worn my bias on my sleeve, and I have always urged my audience to read me in that context and make up their minds for themselves. My comment threads have always remained open, and for the most part unmoderated, subjecting my work to the most brutal form of public vetting you will find anywhere on the web.
Yes, I aggressively support Darcy Burner because she is damn smart and a damn hard worker, and because I believe the phrase “Congressman Dave Reichert” is an insult to anybody with an IQ above 110. Yes, I am proudly partisan, but my work has always been based on facts, and I challenge anybody—even Postman—to prove that my facts don’t stand on their own.
And with that I say… amen.
by Goldy — ,
Of course, you really can’t believe anything you see in this video, or anywhere else on HA, because I’m just one of those “amen bloggers.” So move along… nothing to see here.
by Goldy — ,
You know it’s a bad political climate for Washington Republicans when even the man at the top of their state ticket has chosen to officially deny his affiliation with the party. Dino Rossi filed for governor this week, and under the bizarre rules of our new top-two primary has declared his affiliation as “Prefers G.O.P. Party.”
The G.O.P. Party…? What the hell is that? The “Grand Old Party Party” …?
State Attorney General Rob McKenna has declared that he “Prefers Republican Party,” as have Secretary of State Sam Reed and Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Southerland. And so have US Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Doc Hastings and Dave Reichert, as in fact has every other Republican declaring for federal or statewide office.
But Rossi, no, he’s too ashamed (or savvy) to have the Republican brand attached to his name. What a weasel.
(H/T Richard.)
UPDATE:
Just to be clear, Dino Rossi filed as a “Republican” in 2004, so it’s not like he doesn’t know how to spell the word.
by Lee — ,
The AP’s Gene Johnson has the story of a local Marine whose family has been kept in the dark about the circumstances of his non-combat death.
by Goldy — ,
According to Jonathan Stein at Mother Jones, Cook Political Report has just changed their ratings on 10 House races, all of them with Republican incumbents, and all of them moving in the Democratic direction. And one of these, of course, is WA-08, where Darcy Burner looks increasingly well situated to unseat Dave Reichert.
CA-04 — OPEN (Doolittle) — Solid Republican to Likely Republican
CO-04 — Marilyn Musgrave — Lean Republican to Toss Up
CT-04 — Chris Shays — Lean Republican to Toss Up
IL-10 — Mark Kirk — Lean Republican to Toss Up
NM-02 — OPEN (Pearce) — Likely Republican to Lean Republican
NY-29 — Randy Kuhl — Lean Republican to Toss Up
NC-08 — Robin Hayes — Lean Republican to Toss Up
OH-01 — Steve Chabot — Lean Republican to Toss Up
VA-02 — Thelma Drake — Likely Republican to Lean Republican
WA-08 — Dave Reichert — Lean Republican to Toss Up
Both Cook and CQ have now upgraded WA-08 from “leans Republican” to “toss up” and “no clear favorite” respectively. I’m guessing Rothenberg will follow shortly.
UPDATE:
Here’s the summary analysis from Cook:
WA-08 Dave Reichert
Lean Republican to Toss Up
This high-tech, upper-income district in the Seattle suburbs is prototypical Obama terrain. Although it is likely Reichert’s reputation as a law-and-order moderate will allow him to outperform McCain by a handful of points, it simply may not be enough. Even if she is slightly to the district’s left, Democrat Darcy Burner is running a more focused campaign than she ran in 2006 and still lacks a record to attack. Reichert, who will not be able to spend Burner and the DCCC dollar-for-dollar this time, will look more like an underdog this time around – which is not a terrible image to possess in this climate. This race appears headed to another photo finish.
by Goldy — ,
So… Joni Balter kinda-sorta admits that Washington is not a battleground state… and then expends 740 words pretending it is. And we learned what from this column?
You know, the main downside to reading the Seattle Times online for free, is that I can’t demand a refund or threaten to cancel my subscription.
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!I no longer use Twitter or Facebook because Nazis. But until BlueSky is bought and enshittified, you can still follow me at @goldy.horsesass.org