According CQ, at $3.2 million thus far, Darcy Burner has raised more money than any other Democratic challenger in the nation. And as has been previously noted, this is not just a netroots thing, as Darcy has substantially more in district and in state individual contributors and contributions than Dave Reichert.
A pretty impressive show of grassroots support.
Exactly a month ago, after the Seattle Times editorial board transparently feigned bipartisanship by endorsing Barack Obama, I wrote:
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.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
So, how did my predictions turn out? As of today, the Seattle Times has endorsed Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, while Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark did indeed get the ed board’s nod for Commissioner of Public Lands. I ran the table.
Of course, the Times will publish meaningless endorsements of Democratic incumbents in the virtually uncontested races for Lt. Governor, Auditor and Insurance Commissioner (nominally Democratic in the case of Owen and Sonntag), but with the exception of Obama and Goldmark, the editors of the self-proclaimed paper of record for one of the bluest cities in America are once again backing a full slate of Republicans for every high profile contested statewide or federal race.
As is their right, I suppose.
But how thoughtful and meaningful are editorial endorsements when they can be so easily predicted a month in advance?
I’d say, not very.
UPDATE:
I want to be clear that I did not attempt to predict the Seattle P-I’s endorsements, because I couldn’t. No doubt the P-I’s ed board tends to lean significantly more liberal than the Times, but they are still media establishment types who overwhelmingly favor incumbents. And, as naive a notion as it is, the P-I seems to genuinely embrace nonpartisanship as a lofty ideal, whereas the Times merely manipulatively embraces it as useful rhetoric.
There’s yet another Republican campaign finance scandal brewing in Washington state, one with the potential to lead to felony charges, and so I eagerly scanned the headlines this morning to see if our dailies had figured out the huge story that was falling into their laps.
As Josh first reported yesterday, Dave Reichert is getting his TV ads on credit, an arrangement that now appears to amount to at least a half a million dollars in illegal loans. And what is the headline the Seattle Times chooses to slap on the story? “Burner loans campaign $140,000 for ads.”
Really? That’s the big story here? Are the Times’ editors that dumb, or are they just incredibly dishonest?
See, Darcy’s short-term bridge loan is legal, and extremely common. It’s nothing but a cashflow maneuver that permits the campaign to continue spending money as fast as it’s raising it without drawing down reserves to zero. Darcy doesn’t have the personal wealth to fund her own campaign, and you can be damn sure she plans to pay herself back.
But Reichert’s media credit card, that’s a clear violation of FEC rules:
If you loan money to a candidate or political committee, you have made a contribution, even if you charge interest on the loan. The outstanding amount of the loan counts against the contribution limits. Loan repayments, therefore, decrease the amount of your contribution.
Nevertheless, if your loan exceeds the limits, it is an illegal contribution, even if it is later repaid in full. Endorsements and guarantees of bank loans are also considered contributions. Endorsers and guarantors are liable for equal portions of a loan unless the agreement states otherwise. You alone, therefore, may not endorse a $10,000 loan to a candidate committee. There must be four other individual endorsers so that each one is liable only for $2,300, the per election limit.
The point of these regulations is obvious; if Reichert can buy advertising on credit, with payment not due until after the election, that means he can pay off 2008 expenditures with money raised for the 2010 cycle… something apparently Reichert did to a much smaller extent last time around. Now Reichert going much deeper into the hole, booking ads worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than he has cash on hand, or any expectation of raising between now and November. And whether it be from the TV stations or his media buyer, that constitutes a massive campaign contribution far in excess of federal limits.
This is clearly illegal, and the campaign must know it, but like other Republican campaigns in Washington state this year, Reichert has apparently determined that the inevitable fines after the fact are just a part of the cost of winning.
That our local media can’t (or won’t) see this scandal, is truly stunning.
UPDATE:
To be fair to reporter Emily Heffter, she didn’t write the bullshit headline. And to be fair to the Times, at least they attempted to report on the story, even if they haven’t yet recognized its significance. Meanwhile, crickets from the P-I and the TNT.
The Darcy Burner campaign has seemed awfully cheerful in recent days, and now we know why. A new poll conducted on behalf of the campaign by pollster Lake Research Partners shows Darcy now leading Dave Reichert 47% to 40% in the hotly contested race for Washington’s 8th Congressional District. And this comes on the heels of yesterday’s DCCC poll showing Darcy with a 49% to 44% lead.
I’m sure Reichert fans will self-soothe themselves with the notion that this is just an internal poll, but as I mentioned yesterday, campaigns are not in the business of deceiving themselves. In fact, this represents a substantial turnaround from previous Burner campaign internal polls, which have never once before shown her with a lead. The partisan propaganda part of internal polling comes not from how they are conducted, but rather, from whether or not they are publicly released. And there’s a damn good reason the Burner camp is releasing this poll, as the internals are just as promising as the top line.
Reichert’s job performance rating has “plummeted” to 34% “good or excellent” versus 54% “fair or poor.” And Reichert’s re-elect now stands at just 36%, meaning nearly two-thirds of 8th CD voters would consider voting for somebody else.
No doubt this race is far from over, and will likely come down to a point or two in either direction, but the gloom and doomers who had already written off this race based on polls conducted during the now deflated Palin bounce better start rewriting their post mortems. Given sufficient resources and effective messaging, Darcy is in a position to win this race. So if you haven’t already given all that you can toward turning WA-08 blue for the first time, well, ever… please give to Darcy today.
UNCONFIRMED TIDBIT:
Reliable sources tell me there is another, as yet unreleased private poll that shows Darcy with a small lead over Reichert. I’ll publish details if I can track it down.
UPDATE:
I don’t know if this is the third “poll” I’ve been hearing about, as it’s not really one per se, but a source with the Washington State Labor Council confirms that they are doing phone ID work in preparation for their GOTV efforts, and that among union members, Burner is above 50% and Reichert is down around 38%. Not a scientific poll, but encouraging nonetheless.
At the luncheon debate between U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-8) and his Democratic challenger Darcy Burner at the Meydenbauer Center in downtown Bellevue today, panelist C.R. Douglas asked what Congress’s response should be if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
Darcy Burner fielded the question first. After telling the audience that she and her husband decided to go through with her difficult pregnancy after her doctor told her if she continued the pregnancy she “might not survive it,” she said: “But that decision belongs to us. There is no politician on the planet that has the right to make it for me. The idea that there are politicians that think they have the right to tell people fundamental choices about what happens with their bodies is absurd.”
Okay, cool. But a predictable enough response from a pro-choice, Democratic female candidate.
But then she went on: “And I would support not only codifying Roe v. Wade into law,” she said, “but ensuring that the Constitutional right to basic decisions about oneself and one’s privacy is in fact a Constitutional Amendment.”
The 14th Amendment (equal protection), the 9th (rights retained by the people not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution), and the 4th Amendment (no unlawful search and seizure) have all been used by the Supreme Court to protect Americans’ privacy. But Burner is right that an explicit “right to privacy” is missing. Roe v. Wade is based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Guaranteeing the right to privacy in the Constitution is an unambiguous way to secure Roe v. Wade.
Her statement drew applause from the audience (a No No). The idea of a Constitutional Amendment may seem fanciful, but with polls indicating the Democrats might get up to 60 Senate seats after Election day, it could be a reality.
After the debate, I asked Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik why we hadn’t heard such a dramatic statement from Burner on this before. He said she really hadn’t been asked that direct question before.
Reichert told the audience: “I think everybody in this room knows where I stand on this issue.” In case they actually didn’t, he followed up by saying: “My religious belief is that life begins at conception. In this country we are all allowed to believe the way we want to believe. That’s why we call it a free country.”
He breezed over the obvious follow-up issue (should one person’s religious beliefs be allowed to determine the law for others?) and said simply, “My opponent wants to make this a major issue. When in fact, Congress has no say in Roe v. Wade.”
It was an interesting debate, covering everything from the $700 billion bailout (which Reichert voted against twice and Burner was also against—saying she disagreed with Sen. Obama on it), the federal budget, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Guantanamo, trade policy, global warming, immigration, education, and even sex ed. I’ll post a longer report tomorrow.
I will say: I ran into a Democratic operative after the debate, and he was crowing that when asked about the bailout bill, Reichert acknowledged that he wasn’t an economic expert. I expect the Burner campaign will jump on that.
With all the focus on the presidential debate, you may be surprised to learn that there was another debate today, this one between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert at Bellevue’s Meydenbauer Center. Josh was there, and will post a firsthand report here on HA later, but for the moment you can take a gander at the transcript of Andrew’s live blog.
(FYI, I spoke with Andrew briefly and felt confident that Darcy won… not that it means anything if most voters don’t see it.)
UPDATE:
The Times and the P-I have their quick takes on today’s debate. I was particularly struck by this excerpt from the P-I:
“I still look on myself as Joe Blow from Kent, Washington, a cop who came to Congress,” Reichert said in his closing remarks.
A) He’s been in Congress for two years; it’s time Reichert started running on his congressional record rather than his self-inflated reputation as “the Sheriff,” and B) I don’t want just some “Joe Blow” representing me in Congress, especially during a time of crisis… I want somebody exceptional, and Reichert has done absolutely nothing to show us that he is anything but just another “Joe Blow.”
Today is Now You Know Dino Day, a statewide event sponsored by NARAL/Pro-Choice Washington, who wants all our state’s voters to know the truth about Dino Rossi’s stance on reproductive rights. For example, did you know that Rossi:
One of the more disturbing things I’ve seen in poll after poll as that more than a third of pro-choice women don’t know that Republicans Dino Rossi and Dave Reichert are anti-choice, opposing not just access to safe, legal abortions, but to contraception and medically accurate sex education. That’s why over 300 volunteers in 15 cities across the state are waving signs during evening rush hour tonight to let voters know the truth about Rossi… that he is bad for the women of Washington state.
If you want to join the effort, go to the Now You Know Dino website for more information.
U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Bainbridge Island) was one of just 95 Democrats who broke ranks and voted against Monday’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout.
Inslee was the only member of the Washington State Democratic delegation to vote against the bill. Indeed, one of his Democratic colleagues, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Tacoma), said: “Failure to act by Congress could turn a severe economic slowdown into a panic—a run on banks and all financial institutions that could plunge us into a deep and lasting recession.”
I spoke with Rep. Inslee on Tuesday to ask him about his rebellious vote. For starters, given that he voted ‘No,’ I asked him if he thought Rep. Smith was wrong? Did Inslee think it wasn’t really 1929? (His aide jumped in to let me know the stock market was up 485 points.)
Inslee said, “There is a risk that is real. We could have a substantial reduction in availability of credit. I think that risk exists. But that doesn’t mean any bill will do.”
So, what was wrong with the bill, and did he have an alternative plan?
More important: If the Democrats couldn’t even pass a tempered Democratic rewrite of Bush’s original bailout, did Inslee really think they’d be able to pass something that a diehard liberal like himself could eventually support?
Inslee laid out three problems with the bill.
1. He said it was “based on deficit spending,” and he could not support any more of Bush’s “exploding” deficit.
“It’s strike three,” Inslee said, adding it to a list that included Bush’s war in Iraq ($600 billion) and the Bush tax cuts.
2. He said the bill was missing any “hard provisions” to guarantee that the public would get a return on the $700 billion loan. “We’re increasing the value of these corporations,” he said. “When we do that we should have defined shares, a defined X number of dollars in equity. This bill does not do that. And knowing the history of the Bush administration, they’re not going to be aggressive about ensuring [we get a return].”
3. Finally, he said the bill didn’t address the real losers in 2008, not Wall Street , but middle class homeowners who were facing foreclosures. “The only way to do that is through bankruptcy courts,” Inslee said. “We have to change the rules,” so borrowers, in concert with lenders, are able to rearrange the terms of loans.
And is there the will or the votes on the Democratic side to do any of this?
Inslee said: “We get more Democratic votes if we do that.”
Monday’s vote was 228 to 205. 133 out of 198 Republicans voted against the bill. 95 out of 235 Democrats voted against it. One Republican didn’t vote. So, technically Inslee is right: The Democrats have numbers.
Chastising Democratic leadership, Inslee said: “A decision was made to get 100 or 80 Republicans to vote for it [65 Republicans voted for the bill]. That eliminates the necessity to do a good bill.” Inslee asks rhetorically: “And did we have a good bill?”
Inslee went on to say, in fact, that the Democrats had the leverage at the moment because “the President has to sign” a bill. “We have the power to negotiate with the White House.”
Asked to distinguish his ‘No’ vote from the 133 Republicans who voted against the bill, including all three Washington State Republicans—Reps. Dave Reichert (R-Auburn), Doc Hastings (R-Pasco), and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-Spokane), Inslee said he couldn’t speak for his GOP counterparts.
However, a consistent theme on the GOP side was an aversion to big government. In a statement to the press, Doc Hastings, for example, said: “On the question of increased government intervention in the marketplace, I am just plain opposed to such a massive intrusion into the economy and the marketplace.”
Inslee wants more regulation, not less.
Later in the day, I asked Inslee if the idea being pushed by presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain—higher limits for insured bank deposits—an idea that’s breathed life into a Senate version (and that’s intended to make the House reconsider)—would win him over.
His aide gave me this response: “That would be a step in the right direction, but he says he will make final decisions on his vote only after he sees the whole package. Higher FDIC credits could be an element of the new deal, but the Congressman and his colleagues are wrestling with a lot of other promising suggestions out there right now, too. His vote will depend on what the final package includes.”
•••
Rep. Inslee’s webcasting bill (a bill that clears the deck so Internet radio sites can re-negotiate royalty rates with the recording industry) passed the Senate today. It passed the House last Saturday. It’s off to President Bush’s desk for a signature.
Oh man the Ale House is packed. You’d think there was a championship football game or something. Maybe I’ll post some observations, maybe I won’t, but if I do, I’ll probably eventually get bored or distracted.
UPDATE [6:07]:
McCain: “I’ve not been feeling to great about a lot of things lately.” Huh. I’m guessing it’s his prostate.
UPDATE [6:10]:
McCain, first to use an antimetabole.
UPDATE [6:15]:
Jim Lehrer sounds downright animated. (Or perhaps that’s just relative to John McCain.)
UPDATE [6:17]:
John McCain has a pen. I didn’t know that. Also, he apparently thinks that the corrupt congressman serving prison sentences are victims of the earmark system or something.
UPDATE [6:20]:
So if Republicans buy McCain’s criticism of Obama for rejecting earmarks only after he started running for president, will they buy Darcy Burner’s criticism of Dave Reichert for his new found (and temporary) anti-earmark religion? (Oh… and Obama does indeed have prominent ears. He reminds me a bit of that Vulcan character on Star Trek: Voyager.)
UPDATE [6:26]:
I love the fact that Jim Lehrer is letting the rules slide a bit, and allowing more of a back and forth between the candidates. This has been one of the better political debate formats I’ve seen.
UPDATE [6:30]:
“The point is…” How many times has McCain said “the point is” in the first half hour alone? The point is, if you have to constantly be saying “the point is,” you’re not making your point very well.
UPDATE [6:32]:
When asked about what he plans to cut from the budget, McCain mentioned Boeing. Needless to say, he got rather loud boos from this partisan Seattle audience.
UPDATE [6:34]:
Obama finally hit the softball on what he wants to cut: the $10 billion a month we’re spending in Iraq. Cheers all around.
UPDATE [6:38]:
McCain wants to make sure that we don’t put health care in the hands of the government. You mean, like Medicare. (“Keep government’s hands off my Medicare, dang nab it!”)
UPDATE [6:39]:
The dial test people really like the word “orgy”. It went through the roof. Now there’s a political platform.
UPDATE [6:43]:
By the way, he didn’t quite say it this time, but every time I hear McCain warn against putting our health care in the hands of “government bureaucrats,” I have to point out that it is already in the hands of insurance company bureaucrats. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat, and at least theoretically, the government bureaucrats are supposed to work for you rather than the interests of the shareholders.
UPDATE [6:44]:
McCain: “The next president will not have to decide whether to send the troops into Iraq.” No… the next president will have to make the decision whether to send troops into Iran. That’s what I’m afraid of.
UPDATE [6:46]:
Dial test folks really liked Obama crediting the “extraordinary performance of our troops.” If he can only manage to get “extraordinary orgy of our troops” into a sentence, I think he’ll have this election wrapped up.
UPDATE [6:49]:
Question: Is McCain’s perpetual shit-eating grin the result of his various surgeries? His torture at the hands of the Vietnamese? Or just his personality? Just curious.
UPDATE [6:52]:
Applause and laughter at CNN’s pan of the two debate watch parties: the Democratic watch party was younger, multi-ethnic, and engaged… the Republican watch party was a bunch of dour, white old people.
UPDATE [6:54]:
Did McCain just say he knew Alexander the Great?
UPDATE [6:59]:
McCain wants to set the record straight on bombing Iran, and it is true, that he’s never actually bombed Iran. And if he had tried, he probably would have been shot down.
UPDATE [7:02]:
To his credit, McCain is coming of a helluva lot more coherent than Sarah Palin, and she sets a very high bar. In limbo.
UPDATE [7:04]:
Are those McCain’s real arms? Behind that podium he looks like a muppet.
UPDATE [7:06]:
McCain: “The Iranians have a rotten government, and therefore their economy is rotten.” So… our economy is rotten, ergo….
UPDATE [7:11]:
What the hell is wrong with McCain’s eyebrows? It’s like they’re painted on his face. I know it’s petty, but it’s really distracting me.
UPDATE [7:15]:
In all seriousness, according to the polls, foreign policy is by far McCain’s greatest strength, and while there are no knock out punches or major gaffes, I think Obama is doing very well for himself. If he can close the gap in this one area, McCain is in trouble.
UPDATE [7:17]:
McCain just got pissed about “my friend Henry Kissinger” and nearly lost it. Not very presidential, and the dial test folks didn’t like it. Obama should have gone in for the kill while McCain was on the edge of blowing up..
UPDATE [7:20]:
I look into McCain’s eyes and see three letters: “LOL”
UPDATE [7:34]:
I don’t know if Obama is winning this debate on points, but he sure as hell isn’t losing it, and as the new kid on the block, that means Obama wins. I don’t see how truly undecided voters watch this debate and determine that Obama doesn’t have the demeanor, temperament, knowledge and ability to lead on foreign policy issues. In other words, I don’t see how this makes voters uncomfortable with the notion of Obama as commander in chief. So yeah… I’m partisan… but I think this is a win for Obama. And on top of the bad week McCain has had, I think that makes it a loss for him.
UPDATE [7:37]:
McCain: “Jim, when I came home from prison…” A last gambit of a desperate man.
Daily Kos just put up its third Hell to Pay poll, and I need all of you to immediately click through and VOTE FOR DARCY!
The winner of tonight’s poll will have an online fundraiser held on Saturday, and last week’s winner, Al Franken, ended up raising over $25,000. That’s money Darcy desperately needs not only to keep pace with Dave Reichert and the NRCC, but also gobs of “independent” expenditures from the likes of the US Chamber of Commerce.
In a race that’s expected to be excruciatingly close, a couple minutes of your time right now could mean the difference between winning and losing. So please, vote for Darcy right now!
UPDATE:
It looks like we kicked ass and Darcy won! Thanks to all of you who cast your vote.
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.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
How Dave Reichert’s C Grade Voting Record Turned Into an NEA Endorsement
By Josh Feit
Apparently the National Education Association grades Republicans on a curve. Consider: Suburban Washington state Democratic U.S. Reps. Jay Inslee (D-1, WA) and Adam Smith (D-9, WA) earned A’s for their 2007 voting records. Makes sense. Inslee voted the union’s way over 90 percent of the time and Smith voted the union’s way 100 percent of the time. Suburban Republican Rep. Dave Richter (R-8, WA) got an A for the session too. But he only voted the union’s way 69 percent of the time. (According to the NEA’s official grading scale, you need to vote with the union at least 85 percent of the time to get an A. Reichert’s score, between 55 and 70, should have actually rated a C.)
Perhaps Reichert came into the session with some extra credit. In the previous term, he joined the Democratic majority by voting against a “merit pay” pilot program. Merit pay—tying raises to student performance—is anathema to the teachers union.
Randall Moody, the NEA’s chief lobbyist, told me: “It’s not fair to link pay to things like test scores. It’s unrealistic. There are a lot of other factors. Did the child have breakfast that morning? Do they come from a dysfunctional home?” Elaborating on the NEA’s opposition to merit pay, Moody also asks, “Who judges? What’s the criteria?”
Along with Reichert’s “A” grade, his opposition to merit pay, which he reiterated in his endorsement interview, was one of the factors leading the NEA to endorse Reichert over Democratic challenger, Darcy Burner, earlier this year, according to Lisa Brackin Johnson, the head of the Kent Education Association and one of the members on the Washington Education Association (WEA) endorsement board. Brackin Johnson also reports that Burner told the union she wasn’t against merit pay. “Burner didn’t understand the issue,” Brackin Johnson says.
The endorsement was atypical for the teachers union, which usually backs Democrats. Like John McCain, Reichert, who votes with the Republican majority position 88 percent of the time according to an analysis done in 2006 by the Democratic blog “On the Road to 2008,” has been trying to portray himself as a more independent Republican this election season. He has wisely been hyping the NEA’s stamp of approval on the campaign trail.
If the press had taken a closer look at the curious NEA endorsement, they would have found that in addition to Reichert’s inflated grade, it’s Burner who’s behaving independently. Burner is bucking A-student, WEA Washington Democrats like Inslee and Smith, and the rest of the local Democratic roster—Reps. Rick Larsen, Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, and Jim McDermott. Washington’s Democratic House members consistently voted with the monolithic, union-friendly Democratic House caucus to defeat the merit pay bills repeatedly sponsored by Republican Rep. Tom Price (R-GA, 6).
“During her interviews she didn’t rule out the possibility of paying good teachers well if there’s evidence that it could provide a better education for kids in the district,” Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik says. “She was honest with the teachers when she met with them. Like Sen. Obama she believes we should not rule out reform options.”
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has also bucked the traditional Democratic line. He supports merit pay programs.
Isn’t Reichert bucking his caucus too by telling the union he’s against merit pay? Hard to say. While he did vote against the merit pay measure in 2005, and while he did tell the WEA he didn’t support merit pay during his endorsement interview, he actually voted for a separate merit pay bill in 2007.
Despite several requests, Reichert would not comment for this article.
According to Brackin Johnson, Reichert believes it’s unfair to gauge a teacher’s year-to-year performance on the success of his or her students because groups of kids differ from year to year in ways that are beyond the teacher’s control. For example, social issues outside the classroom may impact students’ ability to do well in the classroom. Brackin Johnson suggested that Reichert, as a former Sheriff, has a keen sense of the issues that affect kids outside the classroom.
There were certainly other factors in the WEA’s decision to endorse Reichert over Burner. Reichert told the endorsement board that No Child Left Behind is an “unfunded mandate” that needs to be reformed. And the WEA “contact team” says he’s become newly accessible to WEA lobbyists. This is an encouraging turnabout from his first term, they say. The change, the union says, was reflected in his improved voting record. “He listens to us,” Brackin reports. (This is a reference to Reichert’s recent “A” grade—again, 69 percent—an improvement over his 35 percent score from his first term in Congress.)
WEA spokesperson Rich Wood also cited Reichert’s “A” as the reason the union endorsed him, highlighting Reichert’s vote to override President Bush’s children’s health care veto; Reichert’s vote to lower student loan interest rates; and a vote for Head Start, the $6.8 billion program for low-income school children.
However, while Reichert did vote to reauthorize the Head Start program late last year, he also voted for an earlier amendment (it failed) which the NEA opposed because they believed it would have limited access to the program. And in 2005, Reichert voted for a successful amendment to the Head Start reauthorization bill that allowed religious groups participating in the federally funded program to hire and fire based on religious grounds. The NEA (and the ACLU for that matter) opposed the amendment.
The chief lobbyist for the NEA, Randall Moody, did explain Reichert’s “A,” telling me that in addition to voting records (which can often be complicated by partisan traps) they add things like how accessible a Rep. is to NEA lobbyists.” It’s a fairer evaluation of a member’s support for public education,” Moody says.
The Seattle Times editorial board isn’t particularly impressed by Sarah Palin:
Palin’s selection was a calculated move to lure Hillary Rodham Clinton voters. Palin all but said so herself. But those who were excited about Clinton shattering the glass ceiling will move away from Palin as they learn she opposes abortion in nearly every instance, including cases of rape and incest. She supports abortion only to save the life of the mother. That’s a dramatic position for a lot of voters accustomed to decades of legalized, and safe, abortions.
Once the chatter fades about her skills hunting, fishing and field-dressing a moose, she will not bolster McCain’s standing because her more relevant credentials are weak. She was for the overpriced Bridge to Nowhere, then later opposed it. She opposes congressional earmarks in the abstract. As mayor of tiny Wasilla and later as governor, she was a fan of earmarks.
So what you are saying is that Sarah Palin is far out of step with voters on reproductive rights, and a total hypocrite when it comes to her stated opposition to earmarks. Hmm. Sound familiar?
In fact, the Times’ favorite “conscience driven independent,” Rep. Dave Reichert, shares Palin’s extremist opposition to safe, legal abortions, opposes requiring pharmacists to fill legal birth control prescriptions, opposes all federal funding of family planning programs, and only votes to support sex education if it is strictly “abstinence only.” (Because that worked so well for Bristol Palin.)
Similarly, Reichert was one of our state’s most accomplished practitioners of congressional earmarking, repeatedly bragging about his booty in campaign literature, before conveniently (and hypocritically) announcing a one-year moratorium on his own use of the controversial practice now that he’s in a tight election.
The question is, will the Times ultimately hold Reichert up to the same standards by which they judge Palin? And if they don’t, does that make them sexist?
Postman follows up on a PolitickerWA report from the Republican convention, noting Attorney General Rob McKenna’s bold prediction that Dino Rossi is dead in the water if John McCain loses Washinton state by double digits. But I think the more interesting McKenna comments came earlier in the piece.
Speaking at a WA delegation breakfast, McKenna noted the many buttons he’d seen cheering the selection of Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, calling the buttons “absolutely right”.
“He made two outstanding picks,” McKenna said of the president, “and it makes an enormous difference.”
The difference he referred to was the court’s typical 5-4 split with the alternating ideology of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The attorney general predicted that Justice John Paul Stevens, at age 87, was very likely to leave the court during the next president’s tenure
“You get another Alito-Roberts type in there, that ain’t gonna happen anymore”, he said of Justice Stevens’ typically liberal vote and Justice Kennedy’s swing vote altering the Court’s opinion between liberal and conservative decisions.
“In contrast, think of who Barack Obama is likely to appoint of the Supreme Court,” McKenna proposed, and when the crowd scoffed he answered, “Enough said.”
“Enough said,” indeed.
McKenna is often depicted by our local press as a moderate, even pro-choice Republican, but his comments before friendly crowds indicate that he is anything but. A McCain/Palin victory would install in the White House the most anti-choice administration in the post-Roe era… an administration intent on making abortion illegal, even in the event of rape or incest, and regardless of the health of the mother. And this is exactly what McKenna is promoting when he celebrates the appointments of Roberts and Alito.
This is in fact the platform of the Washington State Republican Party, and it is the position supported by Dino Rossi, Dave Reichert, Cathy-McMorris Rodgers and Doc Hastings. Our state Republican Party and their leaders want to outlaw abortion, under nearly any circumstance, restrict access to birth control, and teach abstinence-only sex education in our schools (which has worked out so well for Bristol Palin). They want to return us to the era of coathangers, knitting needles and back-alley abortions… yet our local press continues to let them slide away by saying “I’m not running on that issue.”
Of course they’re not running on that issue. They’re position is both immoral, and counter to the opinion of the majority of voters in Washington state.
The elevation of of Sarah Palin to the national ticket was a blatant and cynical appeal to the GOP’s right-wing fundamentalist base, and as such it is incumbent on the press to start asking the tough questions of all Republican candidates, up and down the ticket.
McKenna, to has credit, was absolutely honest with the WA delegation in St. Paul: what is at stake here is the composition of the US Supreme Court for decades to come, and whether it will allow our nation’s Christianist minority to interfere with the most personal decisions a family has to make.
Now it is time for McKenna and his fellow Republicans to be just as honest with voters back at home.
President Bush says “the man we need is John McCain.” Hell, I betcha he’d say we need Dave Reichert and Dino Rossi too. Remember that on election day… these are the folks President Bush says we need.
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!