Search Results for: Dave Reichert

If anybody wonders why newspaper readership is inexorably moving away from print and online, one need only look at Seattle’s two dailies today for a crystal clear illustration of at least one major factor: the online editions simply appear more informative.

Both papers devote their two right columns — fully one third of their available front page real estate — to the same big story: the $97.2 million wasted by the Port of Seattle… or so says a performance audit commissioned by the State Auditor and conducted by an out of state firm. Neither article actually bothers to explain what a “performance audit” is, its intended purpose, or that it’s not by nature as objective or uniformly defined as the more common financial audit. People read the word “audit” and they think of ledgers and spreadsheets and absolute mathematical facts, but more than just an examination of the books, a performance audit is intended to analyze whether an agency is performing its actual task, and recommend procedures to increase efficiency. It’s kinda subjective.

Not that I mean to dismiss the audit or defend the Port, which has in recent years been wracked by scandal, boondoggles, and administrative arrogance, it’s just that the big news isn’t all that much news to even the most casual Port observer, and that headline-friendly $97.2 million figure is more printed in soy-based ink than chiseled in stone. The Port’s problems are well-known and long term, and what both papers neglect to tell readers is that in each of the past two cycles, efforts to elect a reformist majority to the commission have been thwarted when the business community successfully targeted one of the reformist incumbents.

As for the other headlines, the P-I fills up the entire rest of its front page with a dire warning not to inhale buttery flavor, a disturbing and important story, but again, not actually news, while the Times matches by following yesterday’s story about lead in children’s jewelry with a “special report” revealing that few children in WA state are ever tested for lead poisoning. You’d think that with all this focus on lead poisoning, the Times might have mentioned the results of Darcy Burner’s free lead tests? (Hmm. I bet if Rep. Dave Reichert had conducted this innovative public service he would have warranted a headline and a congratulatory editorial touting his bipartisanship.) But no, it’s more important to tell us that Americans like iPods and BBQ, but that beer consumption has fallen 12-percent since 1980… a statistic entirely explained by the fact that I graduated college in 1985.

Read the front page of the dead tree edition of either paper, and you’d think apart from the big story about the Port, it was a pretty slow local news day… but go online and you’ll actually find plenty of hard news stories to accompany your morning cup of joe coffee-flavored steamed milk. Gov. Gregoire will be doing what she does best, suing the powerful on behalf of the people, this time the EPA for denying states the right to set their own auto emissions standards… A groundbreaking wave-energy project has received a first in the nation license to begin construction in Makah Bay… The downtown bus tunnel will remain closed through Monday due to computer problems (did they upgrade to Vista?), snarling holiday traffic… And despite our supposedly crappy congressional representation, the new 2008 federal budget includes an additional $24 million for Puget Sound cleanup, and $88 million for building light rail:

Sound Transit officials said Thursday the money, allocated on a competitive basis and more than initially expected, is a vote of confidence in the rail extension. The allotment also bodes well for Sound Transit’s chances of winning a $750 million grant, which the agency will seek in January, officials said.

(Shhh. Don’t tell Ted Van Dyk.)

It’s all in the P-I and the Times, and more. You just wouldn’t know it glancing at the newsstand.

Earlier this week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin pushed ahead with his plans to change the FCC’s media consolidation rules—over objection of the masses at public hearings like the recent one in Seattle.

Martin’s move comes on the heels of Congressional hearings where lawmakers, both Democratic and Republican, took Martin to the woodshed over the plan itself, over his rush to move forward with it, over a tin ear that cannot hear the voice of the people, for his process seemingly designed to suppress public opinion (like announcing the Seattle hearings five days in advance), and because he published an op-ed piece written (and probably submitted) before the Seattle hearing. “My folks in Seattle believe that they were treated like a bunch of chumps“, scolded Rep. Jay Inslee.

The objections of the people and Congress were for naught:

The Federal Communications Commission voted on Tuesday to loosen media ownership restrictions in the 20 biggest U.S. cities, despite objections from consumer groups and a threat by some U.S. senators to revoke the action.

The FCC voted 3-2, along party lines, to ease the 32-year-old ban on ownership of a newspaper and broadcast outlet in a single market.

Perhaps Martin felt safe in giving us—the people—the finger, but when you give Congress the finger you might just find a foot planted in your crotch. Readers don’t generally expect many positive references to Rep. Dave Reichert here at HA but, considering this issue resulted in Goldy writing a post titled I heart Frank Blethen, that I am about to cite Reichert’s web site shows you just how powerful and bipartisan this issue really is.

That’s right…Reichert is one of the good guys in this battle. As a gesture of gratitude (or maybe something more like a Pavlovian reward) I’ll quote this fabulous press release from Reichert:

Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) joined Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) today in introducing the Media Ownership Act, legislation that will counter the damaging rule handed down by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow consolidation of media companies. The legislation would prevent the FCC’s hurried rule from becoming law by requiring more time for public comment and changing the timeframe for proposed revisions to be published. It would also go into effect retroactively, back to October 1, 2007.

“This legislation changes technical provisions but is simple in its message and effects,” said Reichert. “We want local media to remain local, diverse and free. I’m pleased to join with Jay Inslee to counter the damage that this ruling could bring. I’m not only disappointed in their ruling today, but also the process in which it came about. Last month when the FCC held one of the rushed public hearings in Seattle, I spoke out, calling for retention of the current rules. Relaxing restrictions does not serve our citizens, and would lead to the detriment of localism and diversity that we still enjoy. We’re taking swift action to hopefully prevent these changes from affecting our communities and the families at home. I respect the free market and want a marketplace that allows corporations to operate as freely as possible. However, I believe it is a role of government to stand between corporations and consumers when the public interest is at stake. I will continue to do what I can to maintain a diverse, free and unbiased source of news for my constituents and across this nation.”

Specifically, the legislation would:

• Require the FCC to publish any proposed revisions to its media ownership rules at least 90 days prior to a vote.
• Require at least 60 days for public comment and the FCC must respond to these comments within 30 days.
• Require the FCC to complete a separate proceeding to evaluate the effects of consolidation on broadcast localism before any vote.
• Require the establishment of an independent panel on female and minority ownership. The panel would provide data and offer recommendations to the FCC on how to increase female and minority ownership. The FCC must receive and act on these recommendations prior to voting on any proposed ownership rules.
• The bill applies to any attempt to alter rules made by the FCC after October 1, 2007.

Sen. Maria Cantwell is already cosponsoring similar legislation in the Senate.

Martin is a punk, and an arrogant punk at that. Kudos to Rep. Reichert, Rep. Inslee and Sen. Cantwell for listening to the people and giving Martin a good swift kick in the nuts.

I talked with Sen. Brian Weinstein this afternoon and while he gave a lot of reasons for not seeking a second term — tired of “banging my head against the wall” on issues like the Homeowners Bill of rights, disgust at the recent special session, etc — he says his primary motivation is that he simply needs to make money again… a commentary on our “citizen legislature” that I think deserves a more in depth conversation. Far from bitter or defeated, Weinstein seemed genuinely cheerful at the turn of events, and gave credit to Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown for bringing Fred Jarrett into the fold, a goal that had consistently eluded House Speaker Frank Chopp. Weinstein may not have always been the most politic politician, but he was passionately progressive, racking up one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. He’ll be missed. (At least by me.)

As for Jarrett, well, now that he has torn that scarlet letter from his chest and replaced it with a bright blue “D”, I feel free to divulge a little secret. Back in January of 2006, when it became apparent that no other experienced candidate was willing to get into the congressional race against Dave Reichert, I went to Jarrett and pleaded with him to seek the Democratic nomination. He simply responded that he was “too old,” and that as a state we needed to pursue a “seniority strategy” by electing a younger candidate, preferably mid 30’s, to be in a position to eventually fill Norm Dicks’ role in the delegation.

I liked Darcy Burner, but up until that point I’d always thought of her youth as a liability. Jarrett’s response got me thinking about the many unique advantages Burner would bring to the job, and when, a few weeks later I started to forcefully advocate for her election, I did so with unquestioned enthusiasm. It was an uphill battle for an unknown novice to challenge a sitting incumbent, but I was confident that if she won, Burner would serve her district and the state well.

A while later I approached Jarrett again, this time asking him to publicly endorse Burner, arguing that the support of a respected Republican like him could sway enough votes to swing a close election. I was reminded of that conversation while reading Jarrett’s quote to Postman today:

“I felt there was a strong tradition in the Republican Party that really couldn’t be lost. So what I’ve been doing as long as I’ve been in the Legislature is trying to articulate that moderate Republican, progressive Republican, viewpoint, and what I found is I may have a lot of ego, but I don’t think I have enough ego to think anymore that I can do it.”

That’s kinda what Jarrett told me a year and a half ago, though not exactly in those words. I don’t know if Jarrett ultimately voted for Burner, but I can tell you that endorsing her would have required him to switch parties, and he just wasn’t prepared to go that far at that time. This was his GOP, dammit, and he didn’t want to give it over to those bastards. At least, that was the impression I came away with at the time.

But times change, as do political parties, and I think it fair to say that the GOP left Jarrett long before he left it. Jarrett’s decision was years in the making, as was the political transformation that has been sweeping formerly Republican suburban districts nationwide. As I wrote back in November of 2004, even in the immediate wake of the deeply disappointing 2004 election, the path toward a Democratic majority was clear: subdivide and conquer.

Just like the Democrats lost their base in the South with their support of civil rights legislation in the sixties, the GOP risks alienating their moderate, suburban base by abandoning fiscal conservatism to focus on right-wing social issues at home, and military and economic imperialism abroad. The neo-cons may dominate the national Republican leadership, but they do not represent the majority of suburban voters.

Families move to places like Mercer Island for better public schools, cleaner streets, safer neighborhoods, and all the other public services that a higher property tax base provides. These are people who believe in government because they benefit from it every day, and they routinely tax themselves to pay for the services they want.

These are people with whom urban Democrats have common ground, and we have an opportunity to exploit the wedge the neo-cons have provided, to expand our base politically and geographically. For in addition to a shared belief that good government is necessary to maintaining a high quality of life, suburban and city voters have a mutual interest in maintaining an economically and culturally vibrant urban core.

Welcome home Fred.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh Feit
The Stranger’s Josh Feit joins us for a recap of the week’s news, and a look ahead to what’s coming up. Are North Seattleites NIMBYs? Is Dave Reichert reaching out to labor? Should Tim Eyman have been tased? All that and more, plus your calls.

8PM: What’s up with Cathy Sorbo’s teeth?
Local comedian and Seattle P-I columnist Cathy Sorbo joins us for the hour to share her own unique take on current events, plus an illuminating update from the world of dentistry.

9PM: Regional Blogger Roundup
TJ from Loaded Orygun and Jimmy from McCranium join us by phone for our monthly look at Northwest political news outside the Seattle metro market.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Eli Sanders looks at the Darcy Burner–Rep. Dave Reichert race in Washington’s 8th congressional district and asks, “What makes important people think that Eastside Democrat Darcy Burner can win in November 2008 the same congressional race that she lost last year?”

Sanders asked DCCC chair Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) who was in town to raise money for Burner this week. Van Hollen provides a number of reasons that don’t seem to completely convince Sanders…until he gets to this:

The most significant thing Van Hollen noted during the conference call was that the National Republican Congressional Committee, which last year spent about $2.5 million to help Reichert win, currently has only $2.5 million total cash on hand to help Republicans around the country. Contrast that with the $29.2 million that Van Hollen currently has to offer Democrats and you see not only a snapshot of the hurt that Bush has put on the Republican Party as a whole, but also a clear path to a Burner victory.

The Republican money deficit is far, far more serious than these figures tell. As Andrew Tannenbaum points out:

So far, 22 representatives have announced they are not running. Of these, 17 are Republicans and five are Democrats, and all five Democrats are from safe districts. […] Four of the Republican seats are safe (AL-02, CO-06, MS-03, and WY-AL), but the other 13 will be battlegrounds. In addition, there there are half a dozen seats the Republicans held in 2006 by tiny margins and will have to pour money into to defend. An example is NC-08, in which a totally unknown high school teacher with no political experience, no money, and no support from the national party, came with[in] 329 votes of unseating a wealthy four-term Republican congressman. There are a few Democratic freshmen who come from hostile districts such as Brad Ellsworth in IN-08, but most of them won by decent margins and have voted fairly conservatively in Congress and most are raising money like there is no tomorrow. For example, freshmen Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Ron Klein (FL-22), and Joe Sestak (PA-07) have all raised $1.5 million or more already. The median at this point for all 435 representatives is about $400,000.

NRCC chair Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) will have an enormous cash disadvantage with many open, currently Republican, seats to defend. Unquestionably there will be better investments for the NRCC’s limited funds than WA-08.

Dave Reichert is almost certainly going to have to find most of his own money this election. And given that his recent Bush-headlining fund-raiser raised more money for Burner than for his own campaign, he’ll have to find a strategy that doesn’t shoot himself in the face foot.

Yesterday the WA State Dems filed an FEC report alleging “serious violations” in Rep. Dave Reichert’s third quarter campaign finance report. Amongst other things, Democrats complained that it is impossible to figure out how much money Reichert raised from President Bush’s August visit because of how totally fucked up the accounting was, to which Reichert chief of staff Mike Shields responded:

“There is a fictional idea that somehow you can glean how much an event raised” by looking at an FEC report filed by the Reichert Washington Victory Committee.

Yeah… it’s totally unreasonable to expect to “glean how much an event raised” by looking at an FEC report of the, um, money the event raised. If this is how our campaign finance and disclosure laws work these days, the “fiction” is that we actually have any campaign finance and disclosure laws at all.

But Shields wasn’t finished. When asked how much he now believes the event raised, Shields prevaricated:

“I have given estimates that turned out to be wrong, so I am not doing that anymore.”

Well, he might try actually telling the truth, but then, I’m not “a veteran political operative” like Shields is, so what do I know?

This may be a bit of a Hillary Clinton centric post. If you don’t like it get your own spot on HA and have a repetitive shtick. Then it can focus on your favorite presidential candidate. Or whatever, I’ve tried to support all of the Democrats against bullshit, but this week has been mostly directed at Clinton (because she’s winning and because she’s a woman, I suspect).

* Andrew Sullivan really doesn’t like Hillary. I happen to prefer the political environment of the 1990’s to that of the Bush era.

* Anyhoo, she’s probably got girl cooties.

OK, not too Clintonie, that’s it.

* Mitt Romney is push polling himself.

* Fox News Porn banned by digg.

* I’m sure we totally have the resources to invade Pakistan.

* The new media laws seem to still be up in the air.

* Last year when the Republicans didn’t pass a budget, it didn’t have any earmarks. So the Republicans are good fiscal stewards.

Locally:

* Goldy touched on this, but Rick Ensey’s wife Diane is giving us pseudonymous bloggers a bad name.

* He also touched on this like two posts ago, but Dave Reichert‘s inability to do basic FEC reporting is the gift that keeps on giving.

* You may have missed it, but I guess there was a tax revolt in King County.

* I hope one day we can figure out what the anti-war protesters want.

If FCC chair Kevin Martin thought he could depress turnout at tonight’s public hearing on media consolidation by scheduling it with only five days notice, he shouldn’t have located it in Seattle. By 7PM, Town Hall’s 800-seat auditorium was comfortably full, with more people still streaming in. Even now, over three hours into the proceedings a large crowd remains, with many more people milling about downstairs. I think it a safe bet to estimate that over 1200 people will have come through the doors by the end of the night.

The audience is not only large, but extremely enthusiastic, and almost entirely opposed to the FCC’s proposed rules loosening limits on cross ownership and consolidation. It is also (gasp) bipartisan. The meeting opened with live statements from Gov. Chris Gregoire, AG Rob McKenna, state auditor Brian Sonntag, and KC councilmember Reagan Dunn, plus prerecorded statements from Sen. Maria Cantwell, Rep. Jay Inslee and Rep. Dave Reichert. Needless to say, all opposed the rule changes. A panel of speakers including Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen and KVI radio personality John Carlson also spoke to the commission, and again, overwhelmingly against the rules. Indeed, the only speakers the FCC could find to support further media consolidation were a handful of representatives from media companies that would benefit from the rule changes.

Meanwhile, over 251 audience members have already signed up for a two minute speaking slot — if everybody gets their turn we’ll be here for another eight hours! And of the dozens of concerned citizens who have already spoken, only one has argued in support of loosening ownership rules… my colleague and KTTH morning host, David Boze. (Talk about a brown nose. I sure hope that’s not what it takes to get ahead in today’s corporate-owned media, because if it is, I’m screwed.) Each speaker (except for Boze) has been thanked with loud and boisterous applause, a level of enthusiasm all the more amazing considering we all realize that the Republican majority on the FCC has already written the rules and made their decision, and that this whole hearing is little more than show.

I’m not sure how long I’ll stick around, but I’ll certainly post more later….

UPDATE (11:30PM):
I gotta admit, I couldn’t sit through the whole thing, so I went out for a drink, but I just got back, and it’s still going strong… maybe 200 people still sitting in the audience, more than seven hours later. Amazing. Over 280 concerned citizens signed up for their two minutes to speak, but they’re planning to shut things down at midnight. According to Andrew, who’s been live blogging the whole time, only a couple people have spoken in favor of loosening the ownership rules.

You can argue the merits of the proposed rule changes all you want, but one thing is absolutely clear from this FCC hearing… the public is overwhelmingly opposed. Nearly unanimously. This whole hearing may be a farce, but if so, the people here tonight are playing their roles with passion and verve.

Talking Points Memo ran a piece yesterday on Rudy Giuliani, and his bogus ads on health care. Guiliani has claimed that survival rates from prostate cancer are much higher in the US than in Britain, attributing the difference to the inherent failures of “socialized medicine.” And even though Giuliani’s “facts” have been thoroughly debunked, he and his campaign continue to repeat the lie.

But of course, this isn’t really about prostate cancer or health care reform. As TPM’s Greg Sargent points out, it’s about whether working journalists are willing to continue to let lying politicians play them for chumps.

Memo to media: Rudy and his campaign think you’re a bunch of chumps. They have nothing but complete contempt for the truth and for everything that purportedly led you all to become journalists. Maybe it’s time to get serious about what this guy is up to.

It reminds me of a similar situation closer to home: our local media’s absolute refusal to reexamine the lie that forms the basis of Dave Reichert’s entire political career… they myth that he caught the Green River Killer.

In fact, Reichert was the detective who didn’t catch Gary Ridgeway, and who allowed him to go on killing young woman for another 18 years. Every time Reichert deflects a political question with some anecdote about looking Ridgeway straight in the eyes, he insults the memory of the victims he personally failed. But damn if our local media is willing to objectively investigate the truth when they are as much responsible for the myth-making as Reichert himself.

It was a bungled investigation. They had Ridgeway. And they let him go. Voters deserve to know the truth.

Looking at Seattle’s dailies from across the continent, I’m not really sure what’s in the news today.

It was windy! Or maybe it wasn’t. The Seattle P-I says 280,000 were left without power yesterday, but the Seattle Times says “tens of thousands.” I guess, mathematically, they both could be right. Also, one man was killed kite-surfing in 40 mile-per-hour winds. I’m sure somewhere else in the world a man was killed yesterday sticking a fork in a toaster, but I don’t see any headlines about that.

The War on Christmas seems to come earlier every year. Damn commercialism. Anyway, looks like those pussies at the Port of Seattle have decided to opt out of the annual multicultural debate by clear-cutting their Christmas trees and replacing them with a monoculture of snow dusted birch. Nothing like going out of your way to make all sides unhappy.

“I find the whole thing stupid,” attorney Harvey Grad told the Times. I agree.

Meanwhile, the state has announced it will add a nativity scene to the “Holiday Tree” and Chanukah menorah in the Capitol rotunda. I’m so confused.

Forgive and forget? Seattle City Council candidate Venus Velazquez asks voters to forgive her for her DUI:

“I guess all I can say right now is I hope and believe that voters will see this as a human mistake,” Velazquez said. “At some point you make a judgment call and, clearly, I made the wrong one because — legally — I was impaired. My own judgment of myself not being impaired didn’t match up with the legal definition.”

[…] “It’s for the voters to decide whether this mistake is enough to disqualify me from serving them,” Velazquez said. “So many times, in these situations, we’ve said, ‘There but for the grace of God go I.’ “

Will accepts her apology. Joel thinks voters should judge candidates on their ability to serve in office, not their ability to drive. I think she’s finally struck the exact right tone, but it may be a day too late to save her campaign. We’ll see.

Meanwhile, it looks like the state’s leading Republicans would likely accept Velazquez’s apology, what with Rep. Dave Reichert, Attorney General Rob McKenna, and non-candidate Dino Rossi all endorsing Jane Hague, months after her drunken swear-fest with the state patrol.

“Jane Hague… Leadership that works.” You know, when it’s not drinking. And driving.

Rossi also had some run-ins with alcohol. When he was 18, he and a friend got drunk on a bottle of vodka and then, with Rossi behind the wheel, crashed his Pontiac into a house and totaled the car. No one was injured, but Rossi was charged with drunken driving and underage drinking. The charge was later reduced and, instead of jail time, he had to go to a class and pay a fine.

“It’s one of those things that happens when you’re 18 and you know everything there is in the world to know,” Rossi said.

Yup, it’s just one of those things that happens when you know everything there is in the world to know.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

One of tonight’s activity will include taking bets on when Rep. Dave Reichert’s spokesperson Mike Shields gets back to David Postman with an explanation for his incorrect claim that Reichert out-fund-raised Darcy Burner last quarter. (My prediction is 5:30 pm this Friday.)

Tonight’s theme song: Going Down by Jeff Beck, in honor of the recent deflation of Rep. Reichert’s already lackluster fundraising totals for the quarter. Oh…and in anticipation of his probable fate in 2008.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

The Darcy Burner campaign has announced that it will report raising an impressive $304,901 for the quarter ending September 30. That brings the campaign to a total of $518,630 year to date, with $370,228 cash on hand. The third quarter is traditionally the slowest fundraising quarter of the year.

It is hard to predict how much Dave Reichert will report by the Oct. 15 deadline, but I’m guessing it won’t be substantially higher, even with his much ballyhooed visit by President Bush. And in any case, it seems certain that he’ll be in a substantially weaker financial position than he was at this time during the previous cycle, when he reported $929K YTD, and $455K COH.

In October of 2005, Reichert led Burner by a ten-to-one margin in the money race. This time around it is almost certain that Burner will report more cash on hand. No wonder Stuart Rothenberg ranks Reichert as one of the top three most endangered Republican House incumbents.

It’s just been, you know, one of those days. So I’m stealing Carl’s schtick for a quick recap of all the political bullshit that’s accumulated over the past 24 hours.

Frank Reichert
Rep. Dave Reichert sure does like to be frank with his constituents. No wait… Reichert likes to frank his constituents, becoming perhaps the biggest drain on House Post Office resources since Dan Rostenkowski. Reichert recently mailed out his umpteenth piece of franked mail (ie, taxpayer funded campaign literature) since squeaking past Darcy Burner last November, and like all of them, this one includes a little survey so that he can pretend he’s actually carrying on a two-way conversation with voters.

Hmm. Notice anything missing? I’m guessing Reichert failed to include “The War in Iraq” as one of the top-ten pressing issues, because few 8th Congressional District constituents tend to select it from a top-ten list that doesn’t include “The War in Iraq” as an option. Or something like that.

Murderabilia Roadshow
You know what else didn’t make the list? The “Murderabilia” bill… Reichert’s bold attempt to take the profit motive out of raping and strangling women by preventing serial killers from making money selling personal items. “I personally have seen the pain, the suffering of victims and their families,” said Reichert, who has built his political career on the myth that he caught the Green River Killer. “This industry is an exploitation of that pain and that suffering.” Um… by “this industry,” was he referring to murderabilia or politics?

Now if only Reichert’s bill also prevented incompetent sheriffs from profiting off bungled 18-year investigation, it would have my enthusiastic support.

Weapons of mass distraction
So what does it say about Dino Rossi’s prospects for 2008 if he had to resign from the Forward Washington Foundation so that he wouldn’t be a distraction to his own campaign? And what the fuck exactly is the meaning of the word “resignation” when it applies two weeks retroactively, but allows you to continue to receive your paycheck six more weeks into the future?

And could somebody please explain to me what Rossi means when he criticizes the media, saying:

“And they pound you into the ground with, you know, with what the future can be.”

Um… no… I don’t know. Perhaps Rossi’s “idea” man, Lou Guzzo can explain it to me?

Dino Rossi on the issues
Speaking of Rossi, if you really want to know what the man stands for, check out his new campaign website at www.dinorossi.com. Deep.

I’m not demonizing Dan Satterberg…
Because, you know, Dan seems to be a nice guy and all that. But it sure does seem to be a massive conflict of interest to have a guy serving on a Seattle Archdiocese panel dealing with sexual abuse allegations turn out to be the same guy in the prosecutor’s office who refused to subpoena church records… you know, subpoenas like those that were issued in dozens of other cities, and that turned up tons of evidence of church cover-ups. I’m just sayin’.

Time to MoveOn edition.

* So, yeah, I’m about as pissed off as Brad. The country has gone nuts. Seriously, 22 Democrats, fuck the heck (and thank goodness our Senators weren’t among that group)? Of course, nobody seemed to be mad when Republicans you know, did much worse. But at least the liberal media will stand up to this nonsense. And just because we’re pissed off at some Democrats doesn’t mean that the righties and their pathetic excuses get a pass. Anyway, the best way for MoveOn to get into the good graces of the far right is probably to needlessly insult Muslims.

* And if you want to know who hates the troops, the real answer is the anti-sex right.

* And speaking of the anti-sex right, did you know they were anti-sex?

* So how did you spend your International Day of Peace?

* Ann Coulter needs a better fact checker. Or to stop lying, I guess.

* Comcastic

* According to those guardians of the free market, crazy assed Republicans, there’s no difference between price fixing and press releases.

Locally:

* Dave Reichert still isn’t independent or bi-partisan.

* The people who named the South Lake Union Trolley should have thought a bit harder.

* Dino Rossi’s idea man can’t figure out why some people might find the name of the Washington Redskins offensive.

This is an open thread.

Independent pollster Research 2000 conducted a recent poll of Connecticut voters:

For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

	Lieberman	Lamont	Schlesinger
All	49	42	9
Dem	34	62	4
Rep	67	10	23
Ind	53	41	6

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

	Lieberman	Lamont	Schlesinger
All	40	48	10
Dem	25	72	3
Rep	69	7	24
Ind	38	49	9

The main takeaway from this survey is obvious. If the 2006 election were held today, Ned Lamont would be the U.S. Senator from Connecticut and Joe Lieberman would be getting ready for afternoons of chasing the neighborhood kids off his lawn. But beyond that, the survey also reveals the continuing disintegration of the frames that have defined (and misconstrued) the reality of our current political debates.

What’s interesting about this slow changing of opinions is that the biggest shifts come from independent and Democratic voters, but there’s almost no difference at all from Republicans. I think Democrats in Connecticut have clearly been disappointed at how Lieberman hasn’t just abandoned Democrats, but is still actively fighting against them. But for independents, there are likely other reasons for the shift. Independent voters tend to see themselves as moderates. They see themselves as being appalled by both extremes and parties and look for candidates with the courage to stand somewhere in the middle. But while there’s certainly extremism at both ends of our political spectrum, the extremism that drove the Iraq War has become the overriding divide in recent elections, and especially in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race. Being somewhere inbetween the two parties was no longer the most anti-extremist position.

As this divide has taken shape, Joe Lieberman occupied a fairly unique space, and his example is a good way to understand the shifting views of independents and moderates. He’s gone from being the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee to losing a Democratic Senate primary in the span of less than 6 years. But his overall view of the world hasn’t really changed that much. He’s always been a staunch authoritarian. But back before 9/11, his main targets weren’t Iran and Syria, they were video games and the music industry. As a college student during this time, it helped cultivate for me the image of left-wing extremism through political correctness.

The Bush Administration’s war in Iraq then completely shuffled the deck on what we consider to be left and right. The right-wing in this country pre-9/11 was defined more by their free market economic outlook, but following the attacks, it began to redefine itself through the war on terror. Joe Lieberman went from being an authoritarian left-wing nanny who threatened the bottom line of big business to seeing his authoritarian outlook fall perfectly in line with a party eager to drop bombs on the enemies of Israel. But while his political philosophies were always rooted in authoritarian extremism, his diversion from the Democratic Party was painted as “moderation” for being willing to stand up to the supposed “far-left”.

And thus the “moderate” Lieberman was seen by voters as being the centrist candidate – a bi-partisan independent who could relate to both Democrats and Republicans – and defeated Ned Lamont. But being a centrist does not make you a moderate. A moderate is just the opposite of an extremist. And a growing number of independents in Connecticut now realize, as Joe continues to cheer on this deeply unpopular war, and begging for another, that he’s no moderate at all. He’s the same crazy extremist he’s always been, and now his extremism is promoting an agenda much more dangerous than restrictions on video games. And in the new political climate we find ourselves in – defined greatly by how we view what’s happening in Iraq – the “left” is where all the moderates are, while the “right” is where all the extremists have ended up.

Locally, the Burner-Reichert 2006 Congressional race took on a lot of the same frames as the Senate race in Connecticut. Reichert was portrayed by many as a moderate and as having an independent streak. He appealed to independent voters in the district and won re-election. Burner, like Lamont, was a young and inexperienced candidate tied closely to the netroots community through their high-tech backgrounds, and was continually portrayed as an extremist, simply by adhering fairly closely to the Democratic Party platform. Yet Dave Reichert has now just returned from Iraq and is still enthusiastically supporting a war that has become deeply unpopular. He has never voted against the president, nor has he spoken out against any of the extremist tactics (secret prisons, warrantless spying, pre-emptive warfare) he’s employed for fighting terrorism. Darcy Burner has never taken any position even close to as extremist as what Dave Reichert now currently supports. Yet I’m sure we’ll continue to hear from the Republicans about how Burner is the more “extremist” candidate. As independent Connecticut voters have started to figure out that the labels of who was a moderate and who was an extremist in 2006 were reversed, it’s not hard to imagine that the independent voters in the 8th District of Washington are doing the same.