Search Results for: Dave Reichert

A couple weeks ago it appeared Darcy Burner might be cruising to victory.  A number of polls showed her with a small but substantive lead amongst all voters, and a comfortable lead with those who had already cast their ballots.  And then the Seattle Times decided to step in and play kingmaker.

No doubt Dave Reichert’s bullshit “Harvard Hoax” ad, propped up by hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal loans from his media buyer, is having an effect—Darcy’s campaign has received a number of calls from confused voters asking if Darcy actually graduated from Harvard, or even has a college degree at all.  The Times and their collaborators on talk radio took confusion over the unusual wording of Harvard degrees—essentially a niggling complaint over a lack of specificity—and knowingly gave Reichert the ammunition to lie to voters about Darcy’s extraordinary education.  And it may be working.

Essentially, if Dave Reichert wins this election, it will be a huge victory for the Seattle Times and the power of the corporate media to manipulate public opinion, and a devastating loss for those of us in the netroots who have put so much time, energy and passion into electing a qualified and competent representative in WA-08.

Please don’t let that happen.

Darcy needs our help now more than ever, and it’s time for us to leave everything on the table.  The campaign is launching a new ad today, refuting Reichert’s lies, and she needs to put every cent she can behind it to set the record straight with confused voters.  But unlike Reichert, Darcy has to pay as she goes, so if you haven’t already given everything you can, please go to Darcy’s website and contribute now.

And if you have more time than money, you can still contribute to Darcy’s campaign by volunteering today and tomorrow, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and helping with her Get Out The Vote efforts.

For the third election in a row, and with the tacit cooperation of the press, Dave Reichert is closing out his campaign by smearing his opponent.  It is time to show that people power can trump the entrenched interests of our state’s media-political complex.

Throughout the fall of 2006 the polls showed Darcy Burner steadily closing in on Dave Reichert.  While her internal polling never showed her with a lead, several other polls showed the race within the margin of error during the final weeks, and momentum seemed to be on her side.  Even on election night, trailing by a few thousand votes, there were some experienced vote counters who projected a narrow Burner victory, with late absentee ballots shifting the race her way.

Well, it didn’t happen.  Throughout most of the district late absentees trended toward Dave Reichert, who gradually expanded his lead as votes were tallied.

In retrospect it seems clear that Burner’s momentum stalled around mid October, with the race breaking slightly toward Reichert during the final two weeks of the campaign.  No doubt there were a number of factors responsible for Reichert’s victory, but many observers credit his sexist and demeaning “job interview” ad… and the Burner campaign’s failure to adequately respond.

Will 2008 be a replay?

Once again Burner closed sharply on Reichert, with several polls showing her with a small but significant lead by mid October.  And once again the Reichert campaign has attempted to swing the race his way with a demeaning and dishonest ad.

No doubt the “Harvard Hoax” ad is effective; there is plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that many viewers come away believing that Burner never earned a degree from Harvard at all.  But this time the Burner campaign has directly responded with an ad of its own, calling Reichert’s lies “pathetic”, and assuring voters that she did indeed graduate from Harvard.

But perhaps the real game changer this election season is the diminishing opportunity for a game changing ad at all, when viewed in the context of the unprecedented torrent of negative advertising that has flooded our airwaves in recent weeks… much of it courtesy of the $7 million the BIAW and RGA dumped into the governor’s race at the last minute.

In the context of this tidal wave of negativity, the “Havard Hoax” ad comes across as just another ripple… just another attack ad lost in the deafening roar of a sea of attack ads.  Add to that the general distraction of the presidential race, and it becomes harder and harder for any one political ad to make a difference.  Even the NRCC’s predictably effective “she’s gonna raise your taxes” ads get lost in the noise of “she’s gonna raise your taxes” ads launched against Gov. Gregoire.

“Yeah, we know already…” the vast majority of voters must be screaming to themselves, “She’s a Democrat.  She’s going to raise our taxes.  We get it.”  Who exactly “she” is, and in what race, well, what’s the difference?

Compare that to the 2006 cycle, when the biggest race on the ticket, Cantwell vs. McGavick, had already effectively been over for weeks, and McGavick shifted toward softer ads to preserve his reputation.  In that context the job interview ad could stand out.  In 2008… well… not so much.

I’m not claiming victory or anything, or making any predictions, but I do think it reasonable to suppose that Reichert has faced a much greater challenge this year in his efforts to close out the campaign trashing Burner’s character and reputation.  And for that, the BIAW and RGA’s seemingly bottomless warchest deserves at least some of the credit.

Just a few minutes ago on KUOW’s The Conversation, Seattle Times editorial board member Joni Balter kvelled over her paper’s editorial independence and quirkiness, boasting:

“You’d have to open our paper to figure out who we are going to endorse.”

Uh-huh.  And yet, back on September 21, I accurately predicted the Times’ endorsement in every single contested federal and statewide race:

As expected, the Seattle Times editorial board has endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States, paving the way for endorsements of Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, all the while leaving their vaunted bipartisan principles intact.  At least, in their own minds.

In fact, with the possible exception of the race for Commissioner of Public Lands, I can’t imagine a single additional closely contested statewide or federal race in WA state in which the Times endorses a Democrat.

So if your ed board is so unpredictable, Joni, how do you explain my prediction?

The podcast begins in the WA-08 congressional district, where some journalists and a lot of Republicans don’t seem to understand academic degrees and terminology. A Harvard graduate clears matters up. From degrees to convictions…the panel scrutinizes Rep. Dave Reichert’s illegal campaign loan. Next they examine “G.O.P. Party” candidate Dino Rossi’s deposition over campaign finance law violations. (Oh…that sound you hear? It’s the gnashing of Republican teeth across the state). After a brief sojourn into presidential politics, the panel revisits the strange case of Alaska’s Uncle Ted Stevens seven traffic tickets felony convictions. The podcast closes with panelist’s predictions for the WA-08 and the gubernatorial races.

Goldy was joined by Matt Stoller of OpenLeft, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Publisher of the Group News Blog, Jesse Wendel, and initiative specialist Laura McClintock of McClintock Consulting.

The show is 51:36, and is available here as an MP3:

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting podcasting liberally.]

From Roll Call’s article about the WA-08 race between Democratic challenger Darcy Burner and Republican incumbent Dave Reichert, R-Wash.:

Burner said Reichert’s advertising firm, Media Plus, has made what she alleges amounts to an illegal loan of as much as $1 million to buy airtime in this last week before Election Day.

“From my perspective, when they are breaking the law and then use that money to go up on television to say that I don’t have a degree that I did in fact earn, do I think it’s getting nasty? Absolutely. But not on our side,” Burner said. “They will do anything to hold onto this seat, and they don’t care about the law or the truth.”

There’s still (barely) time to throw in one last bit of turkee to help Burner counter this ridiculous and deceptive bit of Seattle Times/RNC/Reichert bullshit. Democrats are hopeful of having a big night in one week, and Republicans are desperate to hang on to WA-08 as their potential losses pile up. Darcy has done as much as anyone to challenge the Bush status quo and having her break their back by defeating Reichert would be incredibly sweet.

I know everyone is probably pretty tapped out, but if you can, go visit Darcy. As we’ve seen, every small contribution adds up, and I’m guessing last minute media purchases are vital as this race goes down to the wire. Don’t mean to be theatrical, but if you’re going to donate one last time to Burner, do it this instant.

So let me get this straight… when Dave Reichert and the WSRP shop around the bullshit notion that Darcy Burner is lying when she sometimes describes her Harvard degree in computer science and economics as a “degree in economics,” the fair, balanced and impartial editors at the Seattle Times decide that’s worthy of a front page story.  But when a judge determines that the evidence implicating Rossi in the Buildergate scandal—a fundraising scam the PDC has already determined to be illegal—is sufficient to compel Rossi to testify under oath just days before the election… they bury that story in the B section?

And they have the nerve to call me a partisan hack?

Whether that proves harmful or helpful to Rossi remains to be seen, said Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political-science professor. “It could be a game-changer. But it’s not necessarily a nail in the coffin for Rossi. It depends on how he responds, what comes out and what the media coverage is,” Barreto said.

I don’t doubt that most reporters attempt to be objective, but if you believe in these final days of the election that the Times isn’t writing its headlines, placing its stories, and otherwise shaping its coverage so as to favor the candidates it prefers, well then, I’ve got an 8-lane 520 bridge to sell you.

I’m still catching up after four days in Orange County, CA., after a failed effort to get Mickey Mouse to comment on whether or not he is registered to vote, but I have to laugh as I hurriedly digest the latest in the WA-08 race between Darcy Burner and Republican incumbent Dave Reichert.

Sounds like the Seattle Times is up to its old dirty tricks, just like last cycle. Did they call her “Mrs. Bruner” yet? Has Sheriff Dave refused to answer any questions from the publisher’s son?

Kos has the latest poll in the race. (Literally–it’s a Daily Kos poll by Research 2000.)

Funny thing–the dirty tricks are blowing up in the RNC’s face, especially as women recognize a low down RNC/Seattle Times smear job. And over what for crying out loud? Some stinking degree terminology, which Darcy is telling the truth about anyhow. Yeah, that Ivy League stuff shore ’nuff is perplexin’.

Read all about the tied race here. If what matters at the end are the trend lines, then things are looking up.

From an April 2008 Congressional hearing in which Rep. Robert Scott introduces Rep. Dave Reichert:

“Our second witness will be the gentleman from Washington, Congressman David Reichert, who currently is in his second term in Congress. In addition to his notable work on the Green River task force, he has over 35 years of public service to the people of Washington. He has a bachelor’s degree from Concordia Lutheran College.”

Of course, Reichert only has a two-year Associate’s degree, and fitting his pattern, he never corrects this mistake, thus enshrining it in the Congressional Record.

[Hat-tip Dan Kirkdorffer.]

From BrianK in the comment threads:

I am an accountant. As part of my licensing and for other reasons, I am occasionally asked if I have an accounting degree. I always reply that I do have the appropriate accounting degree necessary to do my job.

I attended Portland State University when I earned this degree. PSU does not offer a degree in Accounting. Looking at my printed hunk of parchment, I see that I really have a degree in Business Administration, with a concentration in Accounting. Because that’s what they call it at that institution.

I don’t believe that I am misrepresenting myself to anyone.

Really, how hard is that for Emily Heffter and her editors at the Seattle Times to understand?  Darcy Burner has a degree in computer science and economics, and Harvard’s failure to use the terminology they prefer, doesn’t make it any less so.

I myself have been called a partisan hack, and maybe it’s true, but the difference is, I’m not the largest newspaper in the state.  I’m not Washington’s self-proclaimed paper of record.  And I’ve never pretended to be impartial, balanced or objective.  No, I’m just a partisan, foul-mouthed, dirty fucking blogger, but with its latest NRCC press release cum front page story, the Times has proven itself to be less credible than even me.

Dave Reichert, Dino Rossi, the BIAW and the WSRP are all busy violating state and federal campaign finance law, and the Times chooses to splash this kind of bullshit semantic hair splitting on their front page?  Really?

Partisan hacks.  That’s what they are, partisan hacks.  And they should be ashamed of themselves.

The big topic of conversation was the seemingly illegal contribution to Rep. Dave Reichert’s campaign by Media Plus. Did Reichert violate the letter of the law, or just the spirit of the law? Are Republicans like Reichert and Rossi ignoring election financing laws, and treating post-elections fines as the cost of doing business? From there, a heady discussion arose about liberalism and conservatism, and what liberals must do about conservatives.

Goldy was joined by Matt Stoller of OpenLeft, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Publisher of the Group News Blog, Jesse Wendel, and Eat The State’s Geov Parrish.

The show is 56:26, and is available here as an MP3:

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

From TPM:

National House Committees Shell Out Big Money, NRCC Finally In The Game
Both parties’ national House committees shelled out big bucks in the newest federal filings. The DCCC spent nearly $4 million in yesterday’s FEC filings, with the biggest expenditure going for $450,000 against Rep. Robin “Liberals Hate Real Americans” Hayes (R-NC). The NRCC, which has held on to its much smaller war chest until the home stretch of the campaign, spent $4.1 million, with the biggest payment going for over $450,000 to defend Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA).

That’s right, the DCCC is focusing its largest buy against a hate-talking, McCarthyite wing-nut, while the NRCC is focusing its resources in defense of… Dave Reichert.

He says he’s an outsider.  He says he’s independent.  He says he’s moderate.  And yet the party of Michele Bachmann, who says members of Congress should be investigated to find out who is “pro-America” and who is “anti-America,” is focusing its resources reelecting Reichert.  Telling.