Search Results for: Dave Reichert

The unstoppable democratizing force of new media technology

by Goldy — Wednesday, 6/11/08, 1:36 pm

About an hour ago I received an email from YouTube informing me that at TVW’s request, they had pulled my clip of Dave Reichert talking about his intent to cut Medicare. I am in the process of filing a counter notice, and fully intend to defend my rights under the law.

But as you can see, it didn’t take me very long to upload the clip to another service. TVW is free to request LiveLeak pull this clip too, but there are plenty more video serving services where they came from—not to mention the technical ability to serve the clip myself—and I’m happy to play this game at least as long as TVW. Nothing will stop me from presenting Reichert’s own damning words to the public, short of a court order. (And perhaps, not even that.)

As I told TVW President and CEO Greg Lane yesterday, I will be happy to use TVW’s own embedded player with a time sequence parameter, once they make it available… but I’m not willing to wait. There are several fundamental issues at stake here, not the least of which being my Constitutional right to political speech, and a defense of the fair use exemption, one of the principle tools that make news reporting and commentary possible.

Had Mr. Lane contacted me before contacting YouTube, this confrontation might have been avoided. With a mutually acceptable technical compromise in the offing, it would be a shame to escalate this dispute any further… but that decision is now solely in the hands of TVW.

Smearing the Times with their own theses

by Goldy — Sunday, 6/8/08, 3:38 pm

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.

Will TVW sue HA over fair use?

by Goldy — Saturday, 6/7/08, 6:07 pm

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:

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.)

Amen at work

by Goldy — Friday, 6/6/08, 2:59 pm

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.

BREAKING: Dino Rossi quits Republican Party!

by Goldy — Thursday, 6/5/08, 2:11 pm

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.

Cook upgrades WA-08 to “Toss Up”

by Goldy — Thursday, 6/5/08, 12:59 pm

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.

Republicans: laughable, but not funny

by Goldy — Friday, 5/30/08, 12:06 pm

The TNT’s Niki Sullivan, live blogging from the state GOP convention in Spokane, reports on the latest attempts at Republican humor. First Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers entertained the crowd with the “Top 10 reasons it’s good to be a Republican in 2008,” including such comic gems as:

3. We believe Al Gore deserves an ‘F’ in science and an ‘A’ in creative writing.

That’s a hard act to follow. But Dave Reichert tried, trotting out his now familiar Borscht Belt routine:

Right now, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert is up. He repeated a joke I first heard him tell at the Pierce County Republicans’ Lincoln Day breakfast earlier this year. It involves an airplane that’s going to crash, one fewer parachute than passengers and, ultimately, Hillary Clinton dying.

Hillary Clinton dying… oh man, that’s a knee-slapper, isn’t it?

I’m actually well familiar with this joke. My 11-year-old daughter used to tell a variation of it, but involving President Bush instead of Hillary Clinton. And she found it absolutely hilarious… when she was nine.

In fact, the inappropriateness of a sitting congressman joking about the death of a sitting senator aside, this is a joke specifically designed to appeal to nine-year-olds. It goes something like this:

A grandfather, a grandson, a wealthy man and [Despised Public Figure] are flying on a plane, when the pilot comes out and announces that the plane is about to crash, but that there are only four parachutes for the five of them.

“I’ve trained for too many years to die like this,” the pilot says, so he straps on the first parachute and jumps out of the plane. Next the wealthy man says, “I’m much too rich to die this young,” so he grabs the second parachute and jumps out of the plane. Then [Despised Public Figure] stands up and says “I’m [Despised Public Figure], and I’m much too important to die,” so he grabs the third parachute and jumps out of the plane.

Finally, the grandfather turns to his grandson and says, “I’m old; I’ve lived a long life. Here, you take the last parachute.” To which the grandson replies, “That’s okay grandpa, there’s a parachute for both of us… [Despised Public Figure] took my backpack!”

There are two things to note in deconstructing this joke. The first is that the punchline partially owes its humorous impact to playing off a popular stereotype of the Despised Public Figure as stupid. Deserved or not, this works well with President Bush in the lead role (as it would for Dave Reichert himself), but whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, she certainly doesn’t have a reputation for being dumb, and as such, the joke comes off more mean spirited than funny. It’s just a poor vehicle for ridiculing her.

The second thing to note about this joke is that the humorous twist is primarily derived from the unexpected contrast between the cool intellect of the child versus the panicked stupidity of a powerful adult. The punchline is not dependent on the identity of the object of ridicule because the humor comes less from the act of stupidity than it does from the act of a mere child being both observant enough to recognize the error as it was happening, and calculating enough to allow it to play out uninterrupted.

Think about it. You could swap “President Bush” with “Dave Reichert,” and the humorous effect is virtually unchanged, as long as the audience is familiar with Reichert. But if you put the observation in the mouth of the grandfather instead of the grandson, the joke just doesn’t work.

This is, at its core, a joke about empowering children. Which is why it is a joke that primarily appeals to children.

That Reichert finds this kiddie joke so humorous that he repeats it to Republican audiences statewide… well… I’d say that’s funnier than the joke itself.

Could Joni Balter be any more condescending?

by Goldy — Thursday, 5/22/08, 9:50 am

Um… no.

Some Republican insiders believe Congressman Dave Reichert is in trouble, not because his opponent Darcy Burner, is anything great, but because the Democratic tide could be so high it sweeps out moderates in swing districts. And the 8th District is ready to swing.

God forbid she give any credit to Darcy Burner—one of the smartest, hardest working candidates I have ever met—for coming from nowhere to put herself in a position to win. And I suppose it never occurred to Balter to put part of the blame for Dave Reichert’s vulnerability on Reichert’s own “undistinguished” performance in Congress?

No, now that they see the handwriting on the wall, and suspect that Darcy might actually win come November, the Times editorialists just cover their eyes, ears and asses by blaming Reichert’s woes on tides, swings and Obamania.

Shorter Balter: stupid voters.

Inslee cites Responsible Plan on House floor

by Goldy — Wednesday, 5/21/08, 10:58 am

I was talking to a real journalist last night, and not surprisingly the subject of the Burner-Reichert race came up. Also not surprisingly, the journalist raised the question of whether Darcy Burner had done enough over the past two years to address concerns about her perceived lack of relevant experience.

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a member of the local media raise this question, and it immediately got my hackles up. Campaigns tend to focus on the job performance of the incumbent, not the challenger, and with good reason: to criticize the challenger for lacking the relevant experience of the incumbent would be an automatic argument for incumbency.

To wage a successful campaign a challenger must typically do two things: A) raise substantial doubts about the job performance and/or character of the incumbent; and B) present themselves as an acceptable alternative who voters might reasonably give a chance in the job. And generally, in that order.

But that’s not how this race has been covered thus far. The media narrative, that Burner must somehow match Dave Reichert’s legislative experience to qualify for the job, is a narrative that comes straight from the Reichert campaign, and one that she cannot possibly win, as it can be argued that nothing prepares one for Congress like on the job experience. It is a narrative that runs counter to the intent of the founders, who envisioned a citizen legislature, and counter to the mood of a public grown weary (and wary) of professional politicians. It is a narrative that defaults to the incumbent.

But elected office has never been a prerequisite for holding elected office; it was never an issue during Mike McGavick’s run for the US Senate, and it hasn’t seemed to hamper Gov. Schwarzenegger in California. Indeed, representing one’s fellow citizens in Congress is supposed to be an act of public service, not a reward for it.

If I sound a bit defensive it is because I am, for Darcy Burner is clearly being held to an unfair standard. Capitol Hill is filled with Representatives and Senators who never held lower office before first being elected (or appointed) to Congress. Ironically, the best example I can think of to support the notion that legislators should work their way to the top before acceding to Congress is Reichert himself, who had zero legislative experience before winning his current office, and whose track record there shows it.

The primary question before voters is not what Burner has managed to accomplish since losing her race in 2006, but what Reichert has managed to accomplish since winning. Which brings us to the video clip at the top of this post, in which Rep. Jay Inslee cites Burner’s Responsible Plan while debating Iraq War funding on the floor of House.

Inslee describes Burner as a “citizen,” and that’s all she is, and yet through sheer grit and determination she has managed to influence the public debate on Iraq, while Reichert, with all the powers of office at his disposal, has done nothing but parrot the platitudes of the Bush administration. Where is Reichert’s plan? Where is his leadership on this issue or other pressing issues? What has he done during his four years in office other than issue an endless stream of press releases and glossy franked mail pieces?

When critics ask what Burner has done these past two years to prepare herself for office, voters should ask what Reichert has done these past two years with it? And local journalists, however well meaning, should start asking the same question.

Seattle Times endorses Obama!

by Goldy — Tuesday, 5/20/08, 9:41 am

Well, the Times hasn’t endorsed Barack Obama in the general election yet, but they will. They’ll also endorse Dino Rossi, Dave Reichert and Rob McKenna. But you know, because they’ll endorse the Democrat at the top of the ticket it will prove that they are in fact nonpartisan.

Remind me of my prediction come November.

Podcasting Liberally — May 13th edition

by Darryl — Wednesday, 5/14/08, 5:30 pm

Was yesterday’s election a “game changer?” (No…not that one…the one in Mississippi-1, won by Childers.) And what are the implications for Dave Reichert and Doc Hastings? So…let’s say you attend a $33,100 per plate fundraiser. What kind of meal would you expect, and how should it be served? Goldy offers some disturbing possibilities. In any case, is John McCain violating the letter, or just the spirit, of the McCain—Feingold law? Who is to blame for Central Washington losing its nuclear waste to Idaho? Goldy and friends ask the tough questions so that you don’t have to…put down your beer to ask ‘em yourself.

Goldy was joined in political merriment by McCranium’s Jim McCabe, Executive Director of the Northwest Progressive Institute Andrew Villeneuve, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard (in the role of Goldy’s Ed McMahon).

The show is 47:08, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_may_13_2008.mp3]

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

More bad news for GOP Inc.

by Goldy — Wednesday, 5/7/08, 9:01 am

The one and only bright spot for House Republicans of late has been the ongoing primary battle between Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. NRCC chair Tom Cole had fantasized out loud about a “death fight” between Obama and Clinton that would tear the Democrats down, sweep Sen. John McCain into the White House, and with him produce the kind of presidential coattails that could carry House Republicans to victory in November.

But with even official Republican spokesman Tim Russert declaring Obama the presumptive nominee after Clinton’s disappointing showing in North Carolina and Indiana, Cole’s daydream is fading fast, and his caucus is beginning to wake up to the daunting challenges they face this November.

On Monday, former Speaker Newt Gingrich launched a broadside against Cole and the rest of the House Republican leadership, warning that the party faced a “catastrophic collapse” if they didn’t immediately change course in this political environment “reminiscent of the depths of the Watergate disaster.” And yesterday Cole himself added to the gloom, warning members that the NRCC doesn’t have enough money to “save them” in November:

“It was a pretty stern line that he took with us,” said one House Republican.

Cole, on the defensive in the wake of special election losses in Louisiana and Illinois, pointed his finger Tuesday at his Republican colleagues, telling them that they had been too stingy in helping fund party efforts.

[…] Cole’s overall message was clear, said members who sat through the meeting: “If you’re not out doing your own work, and you’re waiting for the NRCC to come in at the last minute and save you, it ain’t gonna happen.” That’s how one lawmaker characterized Cole’s talk, adding that the NRCC is “not going to have the resources” to help all members “and Democrats will have a lot more money.”

That’s bad news for Republicans like Dave Reichert, who yesterday found himself on yet another top-ten list of “Most Vulnerable Incumbents,” this time in the pages of the highly respected (and subscription-only) Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call:

Dave Reichert (R-Wash.)
It’s tough to go from hero cop to endangered incumbent in such a short stretch of time, but that’s the former King County sheriff’s fate in a suburban Seattle district that is steadily becoming more Democratic. Reichert still has a reservoir of good will to draw from as he fights off Democrat Darcy Burner for the second straight cycle. But Burner has become a more polished and confident campaigner — and has outpaced the incumbent on the fundraising front for the past few quarters.

Actually, she’s outpaced Reichert in every fundraising quarter since declaring her candidacy last year, and there’s no reason to expect that trend to reverse itself. Reichert’s never had a reputation in Congress as a hard worker, either as a legislator or a fundraiser, and he’s finding it particularly difficult to raise money now that his party is firmly entrenched in the minority. Not that Reichert has ever been a stellar performer, relying on multi-million dollar bailouts from the NRCC to carry him to victory in each of his two previous elections… bailouts that Cole warns might not be available this time around.

The fact is, even well-larded lobbyists balk at throwing good money after bad, and recent special election losses could dry up resources for the NRCC. Back in December Cole was almost cheerful as money finally started to pour in after Republicans successfully defended a couple seats in Virginia and Ohio, telling staffers:

“I’ve seen more lobbyists this morning than I’ve seen in four months,” he said. The lobbyists were passing out checks, he told them gleefully. “I’ve got one in my pocket from a guy I ran into in the street.”

But I’m guessing Cole’s pockets are pretty empty these days, now that a spate of recent special elections haven’t gone his way. And that’s gotta be bad news for vulnerable incumbents like Dave Reichert.

“Gullible reporters”…?

by Goldy — Thursday, 5/1/08, 8:53 am

What?! You mean Rep. Dave Reichert really isn’t a moderate? The Politico reports:

It is a pattern. Many of his moderate moves turn out to be pretty empty upon closer inspection.

In fact, Reichert has reversed his vote on “moderate” bills a whopping 25 times this Congress. Why would a politician expose himself to charges that he was for a bill before he was against it?

According to an analysis of House procedure by local blogger Dan Kirkdorffer, Reichert often votes with Republicans on every procedural step for a bill, but if it is headed for passage anyway, he reverses himself on the final vote. The crass objective is to get credit from gullible reporters for backing some Democratic legislation.

Take the Democrats’ renewable energy bill. Reichert voted with Republicans to thwart the legislation five times. On Feb. 27, he voted to kill it one last time; when that failed, he turned around on the same day and voted for the final bill, with only 16 other Republicans.

These are facts, not opinions, and if our local reporters and columnists want to continue aping Reichert’s campaign propaganda, the least they could do is examine the facts and offer an alternative interpretation before once again touting his supposedly “moderate” voting record. To do otherwise simply serves to deceive the voters of the Eighth Congressional District.

Dan Kirkdorffer has been relentlessly pushing his analysis since the 2006 campaign, and while it is heartening to see a professional journalist finally examine the data, it is disappointing that the scrutiny had to come from the D.C. press corps rather than our own backyard. No doubt Dan is at least as partisan as I am, but facts are facts and they stand for themselves.

Public service pronouncement

by Goldy — Tuesday, 4/22/08, 1:31 pm

The headline in today’s Seattle Times pretty much sums up Dave Reichert’s entire campaign strategy this election: “In Reichert-Burner rematch, questions still loom about Burner’s public-service experience.”

All in all, I suppose it’s a pretty even-handed piece (though it is past time for local journalists to reevaluate the Reichert as “moderate” meme that Daniel has so consistently and thoroughly debunked), but I just flat out reject the premise that Darcy Burner’s lack of “public-service experience” should be treated as a substantial issue in this campaign.

In a nation whose founding fathers envisioned a citizen legislature, prior public service has never been a prerequisite for higher office, and is certainly no predictor of success therein. In fact, we have a long honored mythology — particularly in the GOP — surrounding successful businessmen who leave the private sector and enter politics to “give something back,” the most recent local example being the failed US Senate campaign of former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick. McGavick was certainly a flawed candidate, but never once did I hear my friends in the legacy media question his lack of “public-service experience.” It simply wasn’t a credible issue.

Burner also achieved success in the private sector before embracing public service, and while she’s no multimillionaire, she honed managerial skills at Microsoft we could surely use more of in Congress, skills she clearly demonstrated in developing and promoting the Responsible Plan. By comparison, Reichert is a career public employee, a beat cop cum paper-pusher who was plucked out of obscurity and appointed Sheriff in what was arguably one of the worst decisions of Ron Sims’ own long career in public service, and who had absolutely zero legislative experience himself, prior to entering Congress. I don’t mean to disrespect police officers, fire fighters, paramedics and other first line responders who put their lives on the line for us every day, but their job experience leaves them no more or less qualified to serve in Congress than most any other profession.

But I take larger issue with this line of attack in that campaigns tend to focus on the job experience of the incumbent, not the challenger, and for obvious reasons. It is fair to question Burner on the issues or on her competency or on her character, but few challengers can ever claim to match the on-the-job political experience of the incumbent, and to legitimize such a direct, unfavorable comparison would amount to little more than a blind defense of incumbency. Reichert, on the other hand, has a two-term record in Congress to defend, a legacy of accomplishments, or lack thereof, that is a legitimate issue of debate. Thus the main question before voters is whether Reichert has adequately performed in office, and if not, whether Burner has the competency and values to warrant an opportunity to serve in his stead. That is the standard by which the media usually covers campaigns because you cannot fault the challenger for lacking experience in the job she seeks.

When consummate Beltway insider Robert Novak says that Reichert “has not distinguished himself during three years in Congress,” you can be sure that he is echoing the opinion of Reichert’s own Republican colleagues. Thus it is not Burner’s experience that is the primary issue in this race — she has apparently excelled at nearly everything she has attempted to achieve in life — but rather the actual experience of Reichert in the job he seeks to retain.

Making sense of the dollars in WA-08

by Goldy — Friday, 4/18/08, 11:07 am

Sure, Darcy Burner kicked Dave Reichert’s ass in the January-March fundraising quarter, but how bad do things really look for Congressman 401? On The Road to 2008 takes a closer look at the numbers:

As compared to Reichert’s numbers from two years ago, he has raised $35,848 less than back then, while spending $20,928 more. He has $26,682 less cash on hand at this point than he had two years ago. Meanwhile Burner has $564,554 more cash on hand than she did at this point two years ago in a race she started as a complete unknown, and that ended with Reichert eking out a 7000 vote margin of victory.

I hate to focus so much on the money race, as I think it dumbs down the political debate, but at this point in the cycle it is usually one of the best metrics for evaluating the relative strength of campaigns. Without sufficient financial resources no congressional candidate can successfully get their message out, but dollars raised also reflects both the competency and efficiency of the campaign, as well as the general enthusiasm for the candidate. Burner received almost 4,900 contributions from individuals last quarter, about ten times that of Reichert, who once again relied on PAC money and high-dollar fundraisers to pad his coffers. And a preliminary analysis of itemized contributions shows Burner expanding her substantial lead in both in-district and in-state contributors.

This fundraising disparity represents a HUGE shift from two years ago, and no doubt is one of the reasons why Congressional Quarterly recently upgraded WA-08 to one of only three Republican held seats rated a “toss-up.” Eventually, once this money starts being spent, we’ll get a better idea of how close this race really is, but you can be sure that it is a helluva lot closer than Reichert and his surrogates are willing to acknowledge.