Search Results for: Dave Reichert

The FEC reports are in and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has outraised Republican incumbent Dave Reichert for the third straight time. Daniel’s got the scoop.

During the two-month, pre-primary reporting period of July and August, Burner raised $311,980 compared to Reichert’s $198,043. Burner’s lead in individual contributions (a measure of broad support) was even more impressive, leading Reichert nearly two-to-one, $217,000 to $111,959.

Reichert still leads in cash on hand, $1,131,479 to $727,607, but with your help Burner expects to continue to narrow that gap between now and the election.

It is interesting to note that despite Burner’s fundraising prowess thus far, very few of her contributors have yet to “double-max”… that is, give the maximum contribution for both the primary and the general election. I mention this both to point out Burner’s fundraising potential over the next few weeks, and to needle all you big-money donors out there to max out now.

This is good news for Democrats in WA’s 8th Congressional District. Both Burner in WA-08 and Peter Goldmark in WA-05 have the better message than their Republican opponents. They don’t need to raise the most money to win, they just need to raise enough to stay competitive, spend wisely, and get their message out.

So far, so good.

Sure, it’s a robo-poll, and within the margin of error, but Constituent Dynamics has just released its first poll of WA-08, and it shows Democratic Challenger Darcy Burner leading Republican Incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert by 49% to 46%.

Wow.

UPDATE:
It’s taken me a while to pull together my analysis of this poll because quite frankly, I’m still rubbing my eyes in disbelief. Don’t get me wrong, I honestly believe Burner has a better than 50-50 chance of winning in November, but intuitively, it just doesn’t seem possible given the circumstances for Burner to be within the margin of error, let alone leading, at this point in the campaign. I would have been thrilled simply to see her within single digits.

So struggling to wrap my mind around these numbers I gave a call to the only pollster I know, Bill Broadhead, who seemed a bit defensive when I started questioning the numbers. It took me a few moments to grok that the polling company in question, Constituent Dynamics (CD), is actually Broadhead’s firm.

Oops.

Anyway, here’s the inside scoop. Broadhead, of course, vouches for his poll’s methodology, as well as the broader reputation of IVR’s (robo-polls) in general, which he says have proven very accurate in recent years. He emphasized, however, that CD does not rely on the less-expensive (and less-reliable) random-dialing technique, but rather uses the voter rolls in each district to prescreen for frequent voters. They then combine the age and gender data from survey responses with that on the voter rolls to create an automatic match-back between the respondent and a specific household member.

As for the somewhat surprising results that show Burner with an early lead despite having very little paid media and a huge name ID disadvantage, Broadhead sees this as part of a larger trend borne out across all 30 House races surveyed: that the 2006 election is in the process of being nationalized like no other race since 1994. The difference, as Broadhead reads the data, is that unlike 1994, when it was largely angry white men who turned against the Democratic-controlled Congress, the anger in 2006 is more broadly distributed across the electorate.

President Bush is proving widely unpopular amongst 8th CD voters, with his job approval/disapproval rating standing at a dismal 38% to 58%. So rather than this being the typical contest between two competing candidates, Broadhead sees this election shaping up as a referendum on President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress.

“What’s going on in the individual elections, while important,” Broadhead told me, “is not quite as important as what we see when there is not this national overlay.”

Um… that’s “the wave” that everybody keeps talking about.

Broadhead cautions that CD’s 30-race survey is not all gloom and doom for the GOP. The data shows no significant Democratic advantage in terms of motivation, and suggests that the national mood is strongly anti-incumbent rather than just strictly anti-Republican. Indeed, unlike most years, Republicans running for open seats are having an easier time of it than incumbent Republicans running for reelection.

Hmm. I suppose I can buy that analysis. Though until I see these results reproduced elsewhere I’ll have to keep the joyful gloating to myself and simply remain cautiously optimistic.

Still, there’s no doubt that the trendlines are very encouraging and that the momentum is now clearly on Darcy Burner’s side… despite the fact that Reichert has near universal name recognition, half a million dollars worth of franking and $300K in advertising (courtesy of the US Chamber of Commerce) on his side.

I bet there are some nervous folks over at Reichert headquarters this afternoon.

From Sunday’s Washington Post:

The traditional fundraising advantage held by incumbent lawmakers — which Republicans have regarded as a safety wall in their effort to keep control of Congress — has eroded in many closely contested House races, as many Democratic challengers prove competitive in the race for cash.

In a year of bad omens for the GOP, the latest batch of disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission offers one more: Incumbency no longer means that embattled Republican representatives can expect to overwhelm weakly funded Democratic challengers with massive spending on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.

This trend is nowhere more apparent than in Washington’s 8th Congressional District where challenger Darcy Burner has outraised incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert two straight quarters. The Burner campaign has reportedly raised over $1.3 million thus far — more than any other 8th District Democrat at this point in the election cycle — with the overwhelming majority coming from individual donors.

Burner needs to raise another $1 million between now and November in order to have the resources to respond to the negative attacks that will inevitably come, so if you haven’t already contributed to her campaign, please give now.

Of course, even if Burner hits her target she will likely be outspent by her opponent, but not by nearly the margin necessary to drown out her message. Reichert had a helluva headstart, but he’s been struggling to raise cash even as his race has grown into one of the most competitive in the nation. Part of Reichert’s problem is that unlike his opponent, he’s simply too lazy to do the hard work necessary to raise money from rank and file individuals. (Imagine the Sheriff spending six hours on the phone, asking constituents for money.) But part of Reichert’s fundraising problem is that it’s simply not a good year to be a Republican in Washington state.

We all know President Bush isn’t too popular these days — especially in Reichert’s 8th district — a fact brought home by a rare presidential visit that only netted the congressman about $240,000. How disappointing was this total? Well, by comparison, a similar campaign stop by President Bush on behalf of 13-term Republican Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (FL-22) brought in a tidy $800,000.

It’s hard to know for sure, but it’s quite possible that Bush’s visit may have actually raised less money for Reichert than the backlash raised for Burner. Ouch.

Either way, one thing seems perfectly clear… the traditional advantages of incumbency don’t seem to be so overwhelming for Dave Reichert this year.

Hey, Dave Reichert made it into The New Republic… though not exactly in a good way:

Dissing Bush can be trickier than it might seem at first. There is, after all, the little matter of fund-raising, where the president, despite his sagging popularity, is still the party heavyweight. The trick for vulnerable GOP candidates is to somehow get Bush money without being in any way associated with Bush or the other radioactive members of his administration–a predicament that is tying Republicans into pretzels from coast to coast.

[…]

For some, the best approach may be simply to ask Bush to stay away. When the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently unearthed the fact that Bush would be raising dough for David Reichert, who represents an increasingly Democratic district in Washington state, the news generated a wave of negative coverage about his coziness with the White House. When Reichert joined the pariah-in-chief at the event anyway, it seemed to do him more harm than good: The visit pumped anti-Bush money into the coffers of his opponent, who ended up out-raising him for the quarter. Indeed, the event provided so much fodder to tie Reichert to Bush that it’s widely seen as the reason Reichert reversed his position on stem-cell research last month.

Word on the street is that Reichert continues to struggle to raise money, particularly from individuals, a category of donors with whom challenger Darcy Burner has been going gangbusters.

The DCCC has made this race one of its top targets with a $1.5 million TV ad buy during the final three weeks of the campaign. Who wants to wager that some of those ads show Reichert standing arm in arm with the President at Boeing Field?

How scared are Dave Reichert’s folks about facing Democratic challenger Darcy Burner? Scared enough that they conducted extensive polling in June, yet didn’t leak a single drop of data to the media. Scared enough that even the NRCC publicly admits he’s vulnerable. And apparently, scared enough that they’re already running Karl Rove-style push-polls… a full three months before the election.

I’ve heard from three constituents who are just absolutely pissed off about being subjected to a telephone ad campaign masquerading as a political survey… a push-poll clearly designed to pump up Reichert while spreading misinformation about Burner. Push-polling is dirty politics at its worst, but the only thing surprising about Reichert’s efforts is that it comes so early — normally we don’t see these sort of dirty tricks until the final weeks of the campaign.

The caller starts by asking to speak to the “male, voting, head of household,” though the three respondents I’ve heard from are all women. It starts innocently enough with “right direction/wrong direction” questions and stuff like that, but after the respondents say they intend to support Burner, the “ifs” start coming out.

“If you knew that Darcy Burner had voted in only 11 of 22 elections, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner held stock options, including stocks in oil companies and Enron, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner supported using aborted fetuses for medical research, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner wanted to penalize the middle class by raising taxes, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

I probably have the specific phrasing off, as the respondents weren’t taking notes, but all three came away with the clear impression that this was an intentional “smear job” designed to mislead voters about Burners stance on the issues. In fact, one so-called “pollster” was openly apologetic about the biased nature of the questions, whispering into the phone: “I’m just trying to earn a living.”

The firm conducting the push-poll is obviously from out of state — one caller couldn’t pronounce “Issaquah” or even “Reichert”, while another admitted she was calling Texas the day before and another southern state the day before that. No doubt other Democratic challengers are being equally smeared in other districts nationwide by a Republican Party increasingly fearful of the coming purge, and willing to stoop to any level to cling to power.

Unfortunately, one of the things that makes push-polls so popular is that journalists tend to be reluctant to write about them, because there’s rarely a recording to verify the details.

So here’s want I want all of you to do: be prepared. If you think you’re in the process of being push-polled, take detailed notes, or better yet, record the conversation. And if you’ve already been push-polled, drop me an email and let me know so we can corroborate the details as much as possible.

We all expect the Republicans to stoop to dirty tricks in defense of Reichert. But let’s not allow them to get away with it without consequences.

From The Hill:

The House GOP leadership is helping Republican lawmakers who have tough reelection battles by letting them take the lead on more legislation.

Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) was quick to congratulate freshman Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) yesterday after the House approved his bill to improve communications between emergency first responders.

It was obviously a hard fought, controversial bill, considering it passed 424-2. No wonder it took Reichert nearly two years to shepherd this important piece of legislation out of committee and to the floor. All that arm twisting takes time.

Anyway, I trust the local press to keep this bill in context.

“The House leadership is very cognizant of the members that need to boast about being effective,” one Republican lobbyist with business before the Financial Services Committee wrote in an e-mail. “Passing their bills is one way to prove that.”

That’s right, the House Republican leadership understands that Reichert needs to boast about being effective. Hmm. I wonder why?

The more I think of this race, the more I think Burner might be the right candidate in the right place at the right time.

That’s the message I want to take away from Joni Balter’s column today in the Seattle Times. [Can Burner bushwhack Reichert?]

I want to thank Balter for recognizing and corroborating what us bloggers have been saying for months… that Darcy Burner is mounting a surprisingly strong challenge to first-term Republican Rep. Dave Reichert in Washington’s 8th Congressional District, and that Reichert himself appears to be weaker than anybody had expected this time last year. I want to acknowledge Balter for acknowledging that this is a race that’s simply too close to call.

But I just can’t get past her second paragraph:

Reichert may not be the sharpest pencil in the backpack, but he has charisma to bottle and sell. More important, in his first term he distinguished himself as an independent thinker.

Well… I’ll give Balter the first clause of the first sentence. And while I’ve never understood the supposed charms of the silver-haired, leaden-tongued ex-Sheriff I’ll grant that the second clause seems to be the consensus. It’s the second sentence that makes me want to tear out what little hair I have left.

Reichert an “independent thinker?” Gimme a break.

In truth, neither of the two words apply, but it’s the adjective “independent” when applied to Reichert that particularly gives me heartburn. The fact that Reichert keeps claiming he’s “independent” and the fact that columnists like Balter keep repeating it uncritically just doesn’t make it so. But despite the fact that evidence to contrary keeps piling up — and despite the fact that Reichert himself has publicly boasted that the House GOP leadership tells him when to vote against them — the damn newspapers keep writing about Reichert’s supposed moderation.

So Reichert voted against the GOP’s self-righteous and politically cruel Terri Schiavo bill because he himself had already gone through the painful personal decisions surrounding a loved one’s end of life. So he can feel a little empathy. Good for him. Though I’m not sure we should always count on our representatives to have personal experiences to guide them through every contentious vote.

But apart from the Schiavo bill (a vote, by the way, that surely had no political downside in his home district) Reichert has never cast a vote against the House leadership or the Bush administration when it really counted. As Daniel Kirkdorffer has meticulously detailed at On the Road to 2008, the bulk of Reichert’s so-called “moderate” votes — those times he voted with the majority of House Democrats — came on procedural roll calls on issues of broad bipartisan agreement. And the handful of times he went against his party’s leadership on contentious issues, the final count was never so close that Reichert came near casting the deciding vote.

Take Reichert’s supposed opposition to drilling in ANWR, a vote Reichert once described as one he’s most proud of. Balter echoes the party line:

Reichert represents his district admirably on a few environmental issues by opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in certain votes.

Yeah sure, Reichert opposed drilling in ANWR in “certain votes.” You know… those that didn’t really count. But after casting several high profile votes against drilling in roll calls that were never close enough to make a difference, Reichert voted for the final appropriations bill that included the drilling provision.

Way to save ANWR, Dave.

Look, I don’t expect Balter or any other paid journalist to be as biased as I am, but it would be nice to occasionally see a little consistency. The local media just spent a week cynically deconstructing the internal workings of the Cantwell campaign, and yet they continue to naively take Reichert’s voting record at face value… even when he publicly instructs his conservative base not to.

Is Reichert anywhere close to being the most conservative member of Congress? Well, that would be kinda hard. There are some real nutcases in the House and apart from Reichert’s fairly staunch opposition to reproductive rights (um… all of them) he doesn’t really exude much passion on any other issue. Yet when push comes to shove he has proven himself to be a reliable vote on behalf of the administration… which is exactly the reason why President Bush flew cross-country to raise money for Reichert in the first place.

When you put Reichert’s “yeas” and “nays” in context, he just doesn’t come off as much of an “independent thinker.” But then sometimes, neither do Balter and her colleagues.

This is huge… simply HUGE!

The official second quarter results are in and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner reports $590,561 in contributions compared to GOP incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert’s $569,077.

What with a nearly unprecedented presidential visit and numerous other high profile fundraisers, I had just assumed Reichert would significantly outraise Burner in the second quarter, and to be honest, I was all prepared to spin a good second-place showing by Burner into a rhetorical victory. Now that I don’t have to, I’m virtually speechless.

And once again Burner spent less to raise more, closing the all important cash-on-hand gap to about $340,000. Burner now sits on $770,000 in reserves compared to Reichert’s $1.11 million.

This was Burner’s most impressive fundraising quarter to date, and according to the DCCC her $1.13 million total thus far puts her in the top fundraising tier for Democratic House challengers nationwide.

“Our momentum continues to grow,” commented Zach Silk, Campaign Manager. “We benefit from both incredible local support and national recognition that this is one of the strongest challenger campaigns in the country.”

It certainly is. The Republicans pulled out all the fundraising stops in the second quarter and Burner still beat Reichert’s totals. Money is all about getting your message out, and if Burner can remain financially competitive she can beat Reichert in November.

This remains one of the hottest House races in the nation.

UPDATE:
I’ve just cross-posted (somewhat) to Daily Kos. Please recommend so that we can get Burner’s impressive accomplishment as much national recognition as possible.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
N in Seattle, not quite so tongue-tied as me today, points out in the comment thread over on Daily Kos how truly pathetic Reichert’s fundraising performance really is. Reichert had claimed that “hundreds” of donors attended last month’s $1000.00/plate snack with President Bush, but…

Even if the “several hundred” attendees described by the King County Journal was a mere 200 at $1K apiece, a very large proportion of Reichert’s 2Q total came from that one event. And his absence of other funding resources might, in fact, be even more striking — Daniel K, referring to […] the P-I, indicates that attendance at the Bu$h event was more like 400.

Along with his other inabilities, apparently Dave Reichert can’t raise money unless he has the big boys around to hold his hand.

I’m not sure what line in Reichert’s report accounts for the money raised that day — perhaps the 239,880.03 of “transfers from other authorized committees?” But he only shows $186,388.29 in total contributions from individuals for the quarter compared with $418,627.89 for Burner.

That’s a tiny number for an incumbent in a closely contested House race, and it either suggests a surprising lack of support from rank and file Republicans or a stunning inability to raise money. Perhaps Reichert is waiting for the DNA evidence to come in before capturing his base?

I’ve been hitting Rep. Dave Reichert pretty hard on his uncompromising opposition to raising the federal minimum wage, which at $5.15/hour now sits at a 50-year low, adjusted for inflation. So I thought it only fair to ask the Congressman to explain his position.

I didn’t get a direct quote from Reichert, but his press secretary Kimberly Cadena was kind enough to respond. She wrote:

Congressman Reichert voted no because he believes that minimum wage should be dictated by economic indicators and state and local governments, not the federal government. That principle works successfully in Washington State, which has one of the highest minimum wage rates in the country, higher than the current federal minimum wage rate. Even if the proposed federal minimum wage increase had passed, Washington State’s minimum wage rate is still higher than the proposed increase.

Hmm. This seems to indicate that Reichert supports Washington state’s minimum wage, but opposes one nationally. Yet this not only puts Reichert in the uncomfortable position of denying to other Americans the same benefits offered to his constituents at home, it also seems to put him at odds with the Washington State Republican Party’s own platform, whose section on “economic opportunity” includes:

Reforming the current Washington State minimum wage law to make Washington businesses more competitive.

So… if as Reichert (or at least, his press secretary) says, his principle on the minimum wage “works successfully in Washington State,” how exactly does one reform it to make WA businesses “more competitive?”

Here’s a suggestion: raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25/hour so that our businesses are on a more level playing field with those in neighboring states.

Barring that, Reichert is left in a kinda logical bind. If he claims that WA state’s nation-high minimum wage has not hurt the competitiveness of our state’s businesses, thus refuting the WSRP plank that calls for reform, he undermines the argument that raising the federal minimum wage would hurt the competitiveness of businesses nationwide. Yet if he supports the competitiveness premise of the plank, but refuses to level the playing field by raising the federal minimum wage, he’s really only left with one option: lowering WA’s minimum wage to bring it in line with other states — the lowest common denominator approach.

No doubt different states have different economic conditions and different costs of living, so if one believes in a minimum wage one can make a reasonable argument that it should vary somewhat from state to state. But we’re not talking about mandating anything close to a living wage here — even at $7.25 an hour a full time worker would earn well below the poverty line. The federal minimum wage is merely a floor below which the race to the bottom by low-wage employers can go no further. Like WA, other states can always set their minimum wage higher.

So I it leaves me wondering… does Reichert really support the concept of a minimum wage at all, or does he just assume it’s not such a big deal to his own constituents because they’re already covered via state initiative?

I just have a hard time understanding how the highest minimum wage in the nation “works successfully” here in WA state, yet raising it elsewhere would somehow hurt businesses and workers nationally. Perhaps Kimberly will explain further.

Yesterday I admonished Rep. Dave Reichert for repeatedly blocking a vote on raising the minimum wage, which at $5.15/hour is now mired at a 50-year low. (Although as far as I know he’s never objected to a Congressional pay raise.)

I implied that opposing a living minimum wage was simply a Republican Party value, but according to the National Journal’s Hotline this isn’t necessarily true of the party’s real “moderates”:

A group of 25 moderate House Republicans — most of them affiliated with the Northeast/Midwest-heavy GOP labor caucus — has penned a letter to Maj Leader John Boehner seeking a vote to increase the minimum wage before the August recess. The list of signees includes many of the House GOP Conference’s most vulnerable members: All three from CT, NY Rep’s John Sweeney and Jim Walsh, plus PA’ans Curt Weldon and Michael Fitzpatrick.

Hmm.

Reichert is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House. Vulnerable moderate Republicans are seeking a vote on raising the minimum wage. Yet Reichert is not amongst them.

So… is Dave Reichert a moderate?

UPDATE:
Hotline is quick with an update…

Looks like Boehner and Co released the Conference. By a margin of 260-159, the House this afternoon passed a non-binding “motion to instruct” procedure in support of upping the minimum wage to $7.25 per-hour. Though symbolic, the vote allows the vulnerable GOPers to point to an actual vote matching their promises. All the endangered GOPers on the letter voted ‘yea,’ as did Ney and Gerlach.

The vote also provides the Dems with a record of which GOPers voted ‘nay.’ Those opposing it, as Rahm surely scribbled down, included: Mike Sodrel (IN), Charlie Taylor (NC), Thelma Drake (VA), Dave Reichert (WA) and J.D. Hayworth (AZ).

So Reichert refuses to join vulnerable moderate Republicans in supporting a vote on the minimum wage. I suppose that just shows Reichert for what he really is: a vulnerable conservative.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
I just want to be clear about why this vote is so important. Vulnerable, moderate Republicans voted for the minimum wage, yet even when freed to vote his conscience, Reichert voted against it. That surely says something about Reichert’s conscience.

Nationally, the minimum wage has not been raised in over nine years — adjusted for inflation the current $5.15/hour is now at a half-century low. In 2006 a full time minimum wage worker will earn only $10,712, about $6,000 below the poverty line.

So of course today, self-proclaimed “moderate” Rep. Dave Reichert once again voted against raising the minimum wage, joining his party in blocking a vote on H.R. 2329 for the fifth time in a month. The bill would have raised the wage $2.10 an hour over two years, to a whopping $7.25… well below WA state’s minimum wage of $7.63/hour.

Here’s a fact: Dave Reichert is a Republican, and both nationally and locally the Republican Party opposes a living minimum wage. How can I be so sure? Well, apart from counting their votes, I can also read their platform:

According to 94.9 FM KUOW’s web page, Rep. Dave Reichert will be joining Weekday this morning at 9:00 AM to take questions from callers. But word is Reichert chickened out cancelled, and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner will take his place. (I’m hoping that’s a metaphor for the November election.)

Guess we’ll just have to tune in to see who shows up. Should be worth listening to either way.

UPDATE:
Darcy’s on. If you’re curious where she stands on an issue, give her a call: (800) 289-KUOW

It can be awfully difficult figuring out where your congressman stands on the issues, especially if your congressman is Rep. Dave Reichert. Partially it’s the rambling inarticulations he passes off as oratory, and partially it’s because he tends to avoid any forum where he may be forced to address complex issues unscripted.

So it comes as no surprise that Reichert’s campaign has just announced that he will be a no-show at next week’s “A Conversation With Your Congressman” (singular) hosted by the Washington State Alliance for Retired Americans. Both Reichert and Rep. Jay Inslee were invited to take questions on four issues: the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, offshore outsourcing of American jobs, the Employee Free Choice Act labor law reform, and the estate tax. Only Inslee will be there to provide answers.

It’s a shame really, because this sounds like it would have been a wonderful opportunity for constituents to engage their representatives on these important issues, in a relatively nonpartisan setting.

This is not intended to be a political debate. In fact, this forum very deliberately seeks to avoid that, which is why election opponents were not invited. Each issue will be briefly summarized by experts on that topic, audience members will describe their personal experiences on the issue, and the congressmen will explain their positions and answer audience questions.

The format is intended to create an opportunity for our elected U.S. Representatives to listen to their constituents’ concerns, describe where they stand on important issues in a clear and substantive way, and respond directly to citizens’ questions — all outside the politically charged environment of an election debate.

Ah well. But then, we all know that Reichert is a coward. Either he’s afraid that he won’t be able to answer the questions, or he’s afraid that voters won’t like what they hear if he somehow manages to articulate his positions without resorting to a meandering anecdote about the Green River Killer.

If those of you in the 8th District are curious as to what it’s like to be represented by a congressman who’s not afraid to be confronted by his own constituents, go watch Rep. Inslee in action next Thursday, July 6, 6:30 pm at the North Bellevue Community Center, 4063 148th AVE. NE. Or elect Darcy Burner and find out what it’s like to have a smart, articulate, courageous representative, every day of the week.

Looks like a pretty typical piece of campaign literature, huh? An oversized, glossy, folded pamphlet touting Rep. Dave Reichert’s reelection.

Only it’s not a piece of campaign literature, it’s a piece of congressional franking, paid for with our taxpayer dollars, and a clear violation of the spirit of the franking rules, if not the law itself. Oh… and it’s only one of six such mailings Reichert’s office has recently sent to voters.

Indeed, Reichert’s mailings have been raising eyebrows and filling mailboxes for months. At last night’s Drinking Liberally an experienced campaign staffer actually laughed when he saw the congressional seal on the pamphlet, while another knowledgeable politico rolled his eyes in disbelief. And this morning I corresponded with a longtime Republican consultant who confided that there’s a pretty blurry line between what is or is not a legitimate use of franking privilege, but that this one “crosses it by a mile.”

But it’s not just the content of Reichert’s mailings that pushes the limits of the franking rules. House members are prohibited from franking mass mailings to constituents within 90 days before an election; with a September 19 primary date, that means the last day this latest mailing should have been postmarked was Tuesday, June 20th. Yet this latest flyer didn’t start hitting mailboxes until Monday, June 26th.

Of course, presorted standard mailings like this can take over a week to go cross country, but since the cost is distance sensitive and the mailing was likely produced by local consultant Bruce Boram, chances are it was printed locally and mailed from the USPS’s Seattle Bulk Mail Center.

So the question is… when did this mailing drop? If it actually went out after June 20th, then Reichert broke the franking rules. Not exactly the kind of disregard for the law you’d expect from an ex-sheriff.

Hey… why’d they feed Slog the scoop? Oh, never mind, for the point is Darcy Burner has some poll numbers and it doesn’t look so good for Dave Reichert.

Reichert’s job performance rating stands at a paltry 39 percent, while his reelect numbers have wobbled down to 33 percent. And he does even worse with independents.

And if you Reichert supporters want to comfort yourselves by dismissing this as the distortion of a Democratic pollster, have at it, but you won’t be in very good company. A few weeks ago a local GOP insider confided that he’d be surprised if Reichert’s reelects were much above the mid-thirties, and Burner’s poll merely confirms his intuition.

One thing you’ll notice missing from the polling information posted on Slog is the result of a direct head-to-head. I suspect that would likely show Reichert with a lead, but it’s too early in the campaign for such a comparison to be meaningful. Burner has dramatically raised her name ID from 18 percent to 46 percent without the benefit of any paid media, but that’s still too low to get a solid read on where she stands with voters compared to Reichert.

So all in all this is good news for Burner, if not surprising. Reichert is vulnerable and Burner is surging. The 8th Congressional District is in play.