Search Results for: Dave Reichert

I have an email correspondence going on with AG Rob McKenna’s office on a number of questions regarding former U.S. Attorney John McKay, and what if any role McKenna might have played in both the dismissal and the search for a replacement. McKenna’s communications people are good. Their response was prompt, concise and deftly worded in a way that does not exactly provide a direct answer to some of my questions. I’ll report back after they reply to my follow-up.

To be fair, McKenna was heading out to Montesano and Grays Harbor this morning, so my answers were provided secondhand by Communications Director Janelle Guthrie. But she did manage to offer one direct quote from her boss:

“We had a good relationship with John McKay. He was an excellent attorney, highly respected by other prosecutors as well. I think President Bush made a mistake.”

Hmm. I didn’t actually ask what McKenna thought about McKay’s job performance or President Bush’s decision to fire him, so the fact that he chose to offer his opinion unprompted is telling. (Not to mention a display of political savvy that is apparently beyond the reach of fellow Republican Dave Reichert.) For by publicly defending McKay and criticizing Bush, McKenna would appear to be separating himself from both the widening scandal, and the slow-motion implosion of the Bush administration itself.

But taken at his word, his statement also does something else that I hope levelheaded voters will take to heart: it hammers yet another nail in the coffin of the oft-repeated GOP meme that Democrats somehow stole the 2004 gubernatorial election.

As the New York Times points out in an editorial today, “phony fraud charges” were at the center of the U.S. attorney firings:

In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud.

[…] John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor’s race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. “There was no evidence,” he said, “and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.”

So if McKenna, fully aware of McKay’s public comments, is now vouching for McKay’s performance and criticizing his firing… isn’t he also vouching for the integrity of the 2004 gubernatorial election?

McKay refused to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury, which is of course exactly what many Republicans wanted him to do. That is what the EFF’s Bob Williams and the BIAW’s Tom McCabe angrily demanded. That is what all six Republicans on the King County Council demanded when they wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. That is what our friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics continues to demand today. When then-WSRP Chair Chris Vance describes speaking with McKay and complaining to the White House, he appears incredulous that good Republicans wouldn’t subvert our supposedly impartial judicial system for partisan political purposes:

“We had a Republican secretary of state, a Republican prosecutor in King County and a Republican U.S. attorney, and no one was doing anything.”

Not to mention a Republican state Attorney General, Rob McKenna. In 2004 the entire investigative, prosecutorial and administrative apparatus was controlled by loyal Republicans, and yet there were no indictments, there were no prosecutions, and there were no grand juries. Why? For the same reason a cherry-picked judge in a Republican county dismissed “with prejudice” all allegations of fraud: there was no evidence.

I believe a sort of mass psychosis set in to our state’s Republican establishment in the wake of Dino Rossi’s incredibly close and understandably frustrating loss to Gov. Chris Gregoire — a mindset of dark thoughts in which party stalwarts cynically determined that absolutely everything and anything was possible at the hands of their enemies across the aisle… and that absolutely everything and anything was permissible in response. Fed by the paranoid fantasies of the right-wing blogs, and the ruthless partisanship of the BIAW and EFF, the state GOP not only pursued a hopeless legal contest, but set in motion a series of events that ultimately led to McKay’s firing. The WSRP made the biggest political mistake possible — it came to believe its own propaganda — and in so doing played a major role in instigating a national scandal that threatens Gonzales himself, and further tarnishes the Republican brand.

“President Bush made a mistake.” Absolutely, and in more ways than one. It remains to be seen if McKenna’s efforts to separate himself from this mistake after the fact are entirely supported by the record of his own actions and statements at the time.

One of the arguments we repeatedly made during the late stages of the 2006 midterm election was that with Dems poised to take over the House, the region would be better served by a freshman Darcy Burner in the majority than a two-term Dave Reichert in the minority. Well that thesis was just neatly illustrated by Congress.org’s annual Congressional Power Rankings, which show The Sheriff dropping from a ranking of 166 in 2006 to a pathetic 419 in 2007.

That’s right, there are only handful of representatives with less power than Reichert, which if you look at his Power Point Breakdown, is mostly due to the fact that he scores giant goose-eggs for both Influence and Legislation. By comparison, his fellow WA Republican Cathy McMorris, who also arrived in Congress in the class of 2004, manages to maintain a more respectable ranking of 231.

In cynically concluding their unmitigated, lying load of bullshit endorsement of Reichert, the Seattle Times wrote:

“His goal should be to expand his influence and be a stronger voice for change.”

Hey Frank… how’s that working out for you?

It’s a busy lineup tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: Run Darcy, run!
On Friday, Darcy Burner officially filed to take a second shot at Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Sheriff) in WA’s 8th Congressional District, and tonight she joins me on the show to explain why. What are we likely to see from Burner for Congress v2.0? Give us a call and ask Darcy yourself.

8PM: The Patty & Joel Show
Sen. Patty Murray calls in at the top of the hour with the latest on the Walter Reed Hospital scandal, and the conditions at Madigan Army Medical Center at Fort Lewis. Then Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly joins me in the studio for the remainder of the hour to talk about local and national politics, and I suppose, what Sen. Murray had to say.

9PM: TBA
Tunnel vs. Sonics, Halliburton moves to Dubai, hate-mail highlights and other rantable topics.

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

It seems like the 2006 race just ended, and already the Democratic field is coming together to take on Rep. Dave Reichert in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

I ran into Tony Ventrella last night at Chocolate for Choice, and immediately asked him if he was really running for Congress in WA-08, and he gave the kind of definitive, confident reply a real candidate is supposed to give: “All the way through November, and beyond,” he insisted. Well, he’s got that part down pat.

Yesterday was also the day DraftRossHunter.org kicked off an effort to draft state Rep. Ross Hunter (D-Bellevue) for a run against Reichert. I suppose calling it a “Draft” campaign might suggest to some an aura of grassroots activism, but I’m told it is largely the initiative of King County Democrats Finance Chair Sharon Mast. Ross was informed of the effort, and didn’t object, but said he couldn’t deal with it until after the session. When asked for his biographical information, Hunter pointed Mast to his consultants at Moxie Media, who gave her what she needed. It’s not exactly grassroots provenance — and there’s nothing wrong with that — but it certainly doesn’t represent a broader movement.

Also at Chocolate for Choice last night was the 2006 Democratic nominee, Darcy Burner, and like the experienced politician she’s become, she would neither confirm nor deny her candidacy for a second run at “the Sheriff”. (A self-designation Reichert reminds us at the start of nearly every sentence, as in: “If I can look Gary Ridgeway straight in the eyes, I can look you in the eyes and tell you that I want a tall, double-shot, low-fat latte.”)

So where does that leave us? Perhaps my allegiance is showing, but if I were a betting man, I’d guess Darcy will run. And if Burner runs, I’m pretty damn confident we’ll be looking at a Reichert/Burner rematch in 2008.

Tony’s a nice guy and all, and from our brief conversation it sounds like his politics are a good match for the district, but I’m not sure he fully groks the immense amount of hard work and begging fundraising required to make a viable run. Sure, he’s the only one of the three who can go on Dori’s show without being totally trashed, but Dori isn’t exactly known as a Democratic primary kingmaker. There is a finite reservoir of political dollars, and the unfortunate reality is that money in the bank is the primary yard stick by which donors judge political viability. Sometimes newcomers surprise you (ie, Darcy’s $3 million-plus in 2006), but I’m guessing Tony will be out of the running by this time next year, if not sooner.

As a several term legislator, Ross is the most experienced politician of the three, and if he had run for the nomination in 2006, he might have kicked Darcy’s ass. But this ain’t 2006.

After running an insurgent, come-from-nowhere campaign that raised unprecedented money, and coming within a few thousand votes of an incumbent despite the more than $6 million spent against her, Darcy is undoubtedly the frontrunner, and by far. Darcy has the advantage over Tony and Ross in almost every category: she has the district-wide name ID, the media exposure, the volunteers, the professional organization, and perhaps most importantly, the fundraising list. She also has the advantage of having been thoroughly vetted, with no skeletons exposed, despite the best efforts of Karl Rove and his evil minions.

And finally, Darcy not only has the support, but the love and respect of the netroots, a growing political force that only began to flex its muscles in 2006. If Darcy runs, she will have the bloggers on her side, almost to a one.

Nothing against Tony or Ross. I like both of them. But that’s just the way it is.

As for the general election I remain confident that the Democrats have a decent shot at unseating Reichert regardless of the nominee. The political landscape should remain tilted towards the D’s in a district that is growing bluer year by year, and Reichert won’t have a majority party leadership to puff up his profile during an election year. A presidential election will also greatly increase Democratic turnout in a district that has gone strongly Democratic the past few presidential elections.

And while the conventional wisdom is that Reichert should be harder to knock off now that he’s established in a second term, Darcy’s prospects are also buoyed by a pattern of challengers winning on their second try. Melissa Bean, Brian Baird, Stephanie Herseth, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Boyda, Joe Donnelly and others are all candidates who built on their first campaigns to come back and win the second time out. And knowing what I know about Darcy, how dedicated, hard-working, and most of all, how incredibly smart she is, I’m confident that she has what it takes to learn from her mistakes, and come back and win.

All she has to do is tell us she’s running, and the race is on.

There, I said it.

President Bush is a gift to the Democratic Party. When he leaves office in 2009, Democrats have the chance to send at least four new Senators to DC. States MN, OR, ME and NH have vulnerable incumbents. Colorado is an open seat in a state which is trending blue. Hell, even Virginia, Kentucky, or even Mississippi could break our way.

In the House, Democrats are poised to hold seats won in ’06, while expanding their majority. Even the functionally retarded Sheriff Reichert is keeping his head down. This must be why, on the Eastside, you’re more likely to see the Zodiac Killer in public than Dave Reichert.

I understand why some of my Democratic friends are excited about impeachment, even if it’s all but impossible to do. Folks are pissed, and they want justice, Sergio Leone-style. But handing the GOP a stick to bash you with ain’t smart politics.

Besides, for the last six years, it’s been all about George W. Bush. Now that we’ve got Congress, it ought to be about the American people.

Just sayin’.

What…? The recent firings of eight U.S. attorney’s may have been politically motivated?

The Justice Department said today that Republican Sen. Pete Domenici called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his deputy four times to complain about a U.S. attorney who claims he was fired for not rushing a corruption probe.

Hmm. I wonder if any Washington state Republicans complained to the Justice Department about John McKay? Cathy McMorris? Dave Reichert? You’d think maybe the local media might be a little more curious about the circumstances regarding McKay’s firing. But then, you know, this is just the sort of hardball politics we’ve come to expect from the GOP, so I guess it really wouldn’t be news.

UPDATE:
McKay in his own words, over on BlatherWatch.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM:

7PM: Is John Edwards a faggot? That’s what cuddly, conservative pundit Ann Coulter said at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) conference, where she was the featured speaker:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot–so….’”

The audience at this preeminent conservative event of the year gave Coulter an enthusiastic ovation. Does Coulter (who has endorsed GOP hopeful Mitt Romney) really represent, as Andrew Sullivan suggests, “the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism”…? And if so, what does this say about contemporary conservative activism?

8PM: Should Reichert and McMorris give back their terrorist money? 22 Republicans representatives have benefited from money the NRCC raised from indicted terrorist financierAbdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari — including WA’s Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris-Rogers — and yet none have offered to give the money back. Republicans talk tough on terrorism, but I guess even a federal indictment doesn’t make your money not good enough for the NRCC.

9PM: Is it wrong to boo? Apparently.

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

• The new show meant to compete with “The Daily Show” is awful. I’m not a player-hater: I laugh at Clinton jokes, Kerry jokes, and PJ O’Rourke. But “The 1/2 Hour News Hour” is unwatchable garbage.
• Nick Beaudrot really nails the situation with the Sonics.
• Go skiing with your congressman! Really!
• Rep. Dave Reichert fundamentally misunderstands the war in Iraq:

The Iraqi insurgents aren’t the Wehrmacht, they aren’t Johny Reb and they aren’t the Hessians. Geez, it’s like Reichert deliberately picked every non-relevant example from American history and threw it in a blender. Threw in a reference to Osama bin Laden for good measure.

But he’s soooooo moderate!!

• Remember the four foot tall Labor Secretary? He’s got a blog. Here, he explains why balancing the budget isn’t such a great idea.
• Olbermann: Four! More! Years!
• Here’s a less Seattle-centric Viaduct post. One note: it’s really, really unlikely that we’ll find Native American artifacts. It is likely, however, that we’ll find Doc Maynard’s house keys.

Can someone explain to me why the Mayor of Seattle is proposing gun control legislation that would have done nothing to prevent the recent incidences of gun violence? I’m no gun nut, and I’m for laws that will do some good, and more importantly, I’m in favor of enforcing current gun laws. The difference between an “assault weapon” and a regular weapon can be nothing less than a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount, and a high capacity magazine. I’ve shot an assault weapon; they’re really, really fun to shoot. I don’t understand why my liberal friends want to defend the Bill of Rights, but ignore the second item on the list.

GM’s new hybrid is ugly as sin. Detroit is going to continue to get its ass kicked by Toyota if they build cars like that.

Heheheh… ECB knocks down bullshit from The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza. Expect more to underestimate Pelosi in the coming months.

Jimmy, please please please don’t die!

Senate Democrats are going in for the kill in ’08.

I don’t see Rep. Dave Reichert handling minority status all that well.

Four. Years. Old.

I’d like to say I did my part as well.

From what I remember about this guy, I don’t think he’s going places. I guess we now know it was always about politics.

Before (un)Sound Politics, before the gubernatorial election contest, before he moved to Seattle, our good friend Stefan cut his shark teeth on the Bay area blog NancyWatch, ferociously setting out to destroy the political career of his hated congresswoman, Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

And where’s Nancy today? Speaker of the House.

Hey… congratulations Stefan.

Stefan abandoned his ponytail-in-inkwell-like obsession in May 2003 after moving to Seattle, but he quickly added new names to his enemies list, building (u)SP into a politician-killer that has since toppled the careers of Chris Gregoire, Ron Sims and many other liberal Democrats.

No, wait. They all won their elections. As did a near sweep of Democrats in local legislative and council races over the past couple years. Hmm, pretty much every ballot initiative and referendum has gone the other way too. Come to think of it, except for Dave Reichert’s close victory over come from nowhere Darcy Burner, and a couple of Republican favored candidates in supposedly nonpartisan Port Commission races (how’s that going for you?) Stefan’s pretty much been on the losing side of nearly every race over the past two election seasons.

(Not to mention the much vilified Dean Logan, who left King County for a higher paying job administering elections for Los Angeles, the largest jurisdiction in the nation.)

So here’s a tip to ambitious Democrats everywhere: get on Stefan’s shit list, for it certainly seems to be a surefire path towards higher office. Don’t believe me? Just ask Speaker Nancy Pelosi and future cabinet Secretary Ron Sims.

UPDATE:
As fellow HA blogger Will points out, I shamelessly stole this meme without attribution from a post of his right here on HA. Sorry Will. But considering how infrequently you’ve been posting, you can’t really blame me for forgetting that I have co-bloggers.

Kent Johnson, the operations director for William Ryan Select, the local distributor of AHA TORO Tequila, was pretty pissed off about my post linking alleged sexual predator Larry Corrigan to his company:

Larry Corrigan did work as an outside consultant for us up until April of this year, however he has not been involved in any way with AHA TORO Tequila or our company since we let him go 8 months ago. We are also not involved with his work with the state on behalf of the Tequila industry. I understand that due to his political connections, he was solicited by larger Tequila companies to work on their behalf with the state. We have 0 connection to this campaign.

We are a small business run by 3 lifelong Seattleites, who are all heavily involved in the local community and numerous philanthropies. What we are is a small business trying to succeed. What we are not is a politically entrenched/motivated/connected company on either side of the aisle.

[…] I hope in the future you will see fit to not recklessly tie a small local business trying to succeed to the alledged gross crimes of a former consultant.

My apologies to Kent and his partners. I never intended to imply any connection between their company and Corrigan’s alleged crime. I did however imply a connection between Corrigan’s work on behalf of AHA TORO and his initiative to liberalize liquor sales. I’ll take Kent’s word that his company is not involved in the initiative campaign at all.

So I stand corrected. In sponsoring his liquor initiative, Corrigan was not working on behalf of William Ryan Select. He was working on behalf of the Tequila industry.

And oh yeah… despite some half-hearted attempts from our good friend Stefan to label Corrigan a Democrat, everybody I’ve talked to describes him as a loyal Republican who often boasted of his party ties, and who was integrally involved in several of Dave Reichert’s campaigns. So there.

Darryl’s already hit the story, but I wanted to come back to it after reading this snippet in the Seattle P-I:

A former longtime employee of the King County Prosecutor’s Office was caught in an Internet sting this week, when police say he arranged to meet someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl for sex.

[…] The Seattle P-I is not publishing the man’s name or details about his work on local political campaigns because he has not been formally charged.

We shall call him “Pervert X.” Although his real name is Larry Corrigan, a GOP operative and former Director of Operations and Budget for King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng. Why the P-I thought it should protect his identity and political affiliations I don’t know, especially after KIRO-TV had already shouted his name all over the airwaves.

The Seattle Times was less discrete. It not only described him as the deputy treasurer for Dave Reichert’s 1997 and 2001 runs for King County sheriff, and as a “supporter without an official role in Reichert’s congressional campaigns,” they also went on to get comments from Reichert and a Maleng spokesman.

So, should Corrigan’s identity have been revealed? It strikes me that either the Times or the P-I must have erred in judgement, and reluctantly, I’m leaning towards the P-I. After all, Corrigan’s political pedigree is the only thing that makes this story rise above the usual din of dirty old men propositioning teenagers, so if it was too soon to reveal his identity, it was certainly too soon to publish the story. But then, who am I to question the journalistic decision making of our local media? I’m just some unschooled blogger.

Now I suppose it’s unfair to use yet another scandal involving yet another GOP mucky-mucky to make some assertion about Republicans in general. So I won’t. Instead I’ll just leave the implication dangling out there without comment.

But it is fair to note that Corrigan wasn’t just some low-level party loyalist. He was incredibly well connected. “Very wired,” I’m told. “Unbelievably so.” And apparently, got along great with folks on both sides of the aisle. I mean, for a Republican.

He was also in the process of using his political connections for personal gain. KIRO reported that Corrigan had left the Prosecutor’s Office two years ago to pursue private business interests… and that business is apparently the local distributorship for Aha Toro Tequila. (Go to the Contact page and you’ll find some other state GOP loyalists. And click on the address for “Kent Johnson” and you’ll find your email addressed to “larry_corrigan”.)

Which explains why Corrigan was also leading the effort to run a statewide initiative in 2007 that would liberalize WA’s liquor laws so as to allow big box and other stores to sell liquor. You know… like Aha Toro tequila.

Of course, we’ve come to expect the character of our initiatives to reflect the character of their sponsors. Here’s hoping this particular initiative is dead.

Andrew at NPI live-blogged this evening’s FCC hearing on media consolidation, and he reports that Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen was the first to speak.

Blethen, who was politely welcomed, used most of his time to complain about consolidation and centralization of media in America, and grumble about “the powerful who co-opt the free press”. Indeed.

How about that. Frank and I agree on something.

All snarkiness aside, Frank and I do agree on this issue, which is rather ironic, because as passionate as Frank is in his opposition to loosening federal restrictions on media consolidation, that didn’t seem to stop him from directing his editorial board to endorse a slate of Republicans who uniformly support these new rules. (Or, in the case of Dave Reichert, had absolutely no idea what the phrase “media consolidation” meant.)

Okay… I guess I couldn’t quite put my snarkiness aside. But Frank and I do agree. In theory.

Anyway, Andrew has more on tonight’s hearing here, here, here, and here.

Hmm. I originally wrote a lede to this post in which I accused the Seattle Times editorial board of flat-out “lying,” but I’ve decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept the possibility that they may have only been inadvertently, but flat-out wrong.

In an editorial today advising state legislators to exercise fiscal restraint — a sentiment with which I don’t necessarily disagree — the Times characterizes our current state budget as the largest increase in spending in over a decade… technically accurate, for whatever it means. But then the Times slips in a totally gratuitous piece of GOPropaganda:

[The budget] followed the 5-percent increase of the previous two years presented by Sen. Dino Rossi.

Yup. There you have it: the Times editorial board echoing the key Rossi campaign talking point that he authored the 2003-2005 budget. Only problem is, this talking point was directly contradicted way back in 2003 by Dino Rossi himself, and in the Times’ own reporting:

The Republican budget has much in common with the all-cuts plan that Democratic Gov. Gary Locke unveiled in December. In fact, Rossi opened a press briefing yesterday with a PowerPoint presentation titled: “Following the Governor’s Lead.”

That’s right, Rossi was only “following the Governor’s lead.” And in fact, according to the Times’ reporters, he actually presented a 1-percent (not 5-percent) increase in spending, which would have been largely achieved by leaving 46,000 children without health coverage.

The myth that Rossi authored the 2003 budget is largely that, and while I suppose its inclusion in the unsigned editorial may have been an honest mistake, the total irrelevance of its inclusion to the subject at hand suggests otherwise. Fresh on the heels of a campaign season in which Times editorialists aggressively and intentionally misled readers about the facts pertaining to the issues and candidates endorsed, the Times seems to be already gearing up for the 2008 season.

Dino Rossi authored the 2003 budget the way, you know… Dave Reichert caught the Green River Killer. But considering how unremarkable Rossi’s legislative career really was, prepare to see the Times repeatedly trumpeting this fictional accomplishment over the next 23 months.

Of course the Times has the right to use their op-ed pages to present their own opinions — opinions with which I often agree — but they do not have the right to present their own “facts.” Even if you buy into the argument that there is a wall between editorial and news that protects the ability of reporters to remain objective, it is a wall that is entirely invisible to the readers. The average reader may understand that editorials represent the opinion of the publisher and the editorial board, but he also expects that the information used to back up these opinions is as factually accurate as that presented in the rest of the paper. Thus when an editorial misleads the readers either through a lie of omission or through a deliberate or accidental misstatement of fact, it diminishes the credibility of the publication as a whole.

Today’s editorial is filled with hard numbers that one assumes have been appropriately fact checked, and then almost as a non sequitur it throws in the factoid that Rossi deserves credit for authoring a fiscally responsible budget… an assertion that is refuted by the Times’ own reporting. It is this type of blatant electioneering that made the Times op/ed page a laughingstock during the 2006 campaign and which threatens to carry our state’s largest paper further down the road towards irrelevance. Eventually, we’ll just come to the point were the only people who bother to read Times editorials are the copywriters putting together Republican political ads.

Back in June of 2005, before most Washington voters knew his name, Strategic Vision showed Mike McGavick trailing Sen. Maria Cantwell 50% to 36% in their first head to head poll. By August 2005, McGavick had climbed to 38%. Fifteen months and untold millions later, McGavick has finally reached the magic 39% mark.

Hmm. These are Will Baker numbers — barely a few points higher than my dog would get merely by putting an “R” next to her name on the ballot. I mean, damn… even Richard Pope managed to get 44% of the vote this year. (Keep your spirits up Richard, maybe tenth time’s the charm.)

Not that this was much of a surprise, as McGavick never managed to gain any traction. Even when a couple polls briefly showed the margin closing this summer, it was solely due to Cantwell’s numbers coming down, while McGavick continued to bump his head on the low 40’s.

Why? Well yeah, there was that big blue wave thing — but McGavick was always a sucky candidate running a sucky campaign, and a quick scan through my previous posts suggests he never really had a chance, whatever the political climate.

Take a look. I come off as a pretty smart guy:

April 19, 2005, on reports that Mike McGavick, Rick White and Chris Vance were all scrambling to get Karl Rove’s endorsement:

I’m not really concerned which of the three the voters Rove ultimately chooses, as it’s hard to take seriously a field that includes Vance as a viable candidate. I’ll be the first to admit that Cantwell is no Patty Murray, and should be vulnerable… but if these crappy candidates are the best the state GOP Karl Rove can come up with, it’s gonna be a cakewalk.

July 16, 2005:

I just don’t think defeating Cantwell will be as easy as the Republican faithful think it will. Apart from Rossi, all other GOP hopefuls trailed Cantwell by double digits in a recent Republican poll… and after a slow start, the Senator now reports a $3 million head start in her campaign account. And it doesn’t really matter who the GOP throws up against her, if she’s smart, Cantwell herself will all but ignore her opponent, choosing to run against Frist, DeLay, Rove, Bush and the right-wing Republican hegemony in DC.

It is true that Cantwell has not been the most visible of senators… mostly because she is simply a policy wonk, genuinely uncomfortable with shameless self-promotion. She is also a true moderate on most issues, and as such simply can’t generate exciting headlines like some of her more liberal (and, um… media savvy) colleagues. But her moderate politics and understated style work both ways, making her very difficult to attack. As tough as it is for Cantwell to generate real passion within some progressives, it will be equally tough for her opponent to generate passion against her, outside of the core Republican base.

Democrats will rally to Cantwell because they understand what is at stake nationally, and WA’s moderates and independents who gave both Patty Murray and John Kerry decisive victories last November, will need to be given a good reason to dump Cantwell in 2006.

I’m not sure a multimillionaire Safeco CEO can give them that reason.

July 18, 2005:

It’s hard to imagine how the Republicans are going to present a multi-millionaire insurance company executive who proudly advocates shipping jobs overseas, as a “man of the people.” But you know they’re going to try.

I hear some righties snidely claim that they’re going to force Cantwell to run on her record. Well I hate to burst their bubble, but McGavick has a record too, and it ain’t gonna look so pretty by the time November, 2006 comes around.

July 21, 2005:

I continue to wonder if McGavick, a man with a long record as an insurance industry lobbyist and executive is really the right person to run in WA state against Cantwell, a successful executive herself? Do Rove and Dole and the NRSC strategists really understand Washington state? As one Republican consultant suggests, maybe not.

“What people think in the Beltway and what goes on back home are two different things, and there’s a disconnect there.”

Hmm… the same kind of disconnect that labeled the politically diminutive George Nethercutt a “giant killer”…?

December 5, 2005:

The GOP had counted on an unpopular Cantwell being an easy target, but now it seems clear that McGavick is not only going to have to sell himself to WA voters, he’s going to have to make a strong case for tossing out Cantwell as well. And with Bush’s approval ratings in the toilet, and the GOP leadership not far behind, it’s gonna be pretty tough making the argument that we need to give the president one more Republican vote in the Senate.

Perhaps this partially explains why his fellow Republicans aren’t lining up to challenge McGavick for the nomination?

December 15, 2005, on Sen. Cantwell’s rising approval numbers:

There was a time when state R’s expected the national party to pour lavish sums into this race, but it’s beginning to look like that money would be better spent defending Representatives Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris.

December 29, 2005:

The problem for McGavick is that contrary to popular belief, Christian conservative voter turnout can be pretty soft, especially when the Republican candidate gives them little to get excited about. And as much as McGavick needs to draw votes from Dems and independents, he also needs a strong showing from the GOP base.

March 2, 2006, on McGavick’s announcement that “civility” would be a central theme of his campaign:

Today’s event