Search Results for: Dave Reichert

King and Pierce counties have now reported their latest results from WA-08. Dave Reichert’s lead over Darcy Burner has expanded slightly to 3120 votes.

However, I am now absolutely confident that the race will narrow substantially over the next few days as King County continues to tabulate over the holiday weekend… and Pierce doesn’t report again until Monday.

(Oh… and I still expect the race to narrow.)

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the vote count in WA-08 — even the utltra-reliable Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo got it wrong — so let’s clarify a few things.

First, WA-08 spans King and Pierce Counties; over the past two elections about 81 percent of the votes have come from King, about 19 percent from Pierce. Currently Darcy Burner is leading in King County by about 0.75 percent, and losing Pierce by about 13 percent. Dave Reichert has been holding about a 2,700 vote lead.

Second, when the King and Pierce County results pages say 100% of precincts have reported, they are only referring to the poll votes, which will account for only around 20 percent of the total votes cast. The vast majority of votes were cast by mail.

Things don’t get any easier from there. Pierce reports that it has 65,000 ballots left to count, and King reports 189,000, but as we learned in 2004, these are only estimates and could even now be off by the tens of thousands, while thousands more ballots are still arriving every day. To further complicate the math, we have no idea how many of the remaining ballots actually fall within the boundaries of WA-08. In 2004 WA-08 accounted for about 30 percent of all King County ballots and about 20 percent of those cast in Pierce — but the absentee ballots are counted in no particular order, so it is quite possible that WA-08 is significantly over or under represented in the current count.

So how many ballots are really left to count? Who knows? If you assume that ballots counted thus far have been evenly distributed geographically, and you go by the ballots left to count reports, there should be about 57,000 WA-08 ballots left to count in King and about 13,000 in Pierce… but that just strikes me as way too low. This would produce a total turnout in WA-08 of about 223,000, compared to 336,499 in 2004 (a presidential election year and an open seat) and 203,335 in 2002 (a year when popular incumbent Jennifer Dunn faced no serious competition.) I find it hard to believe that turnout would be closer to 2002 than to 2004. But who knows?

And then there are the provisional ballots. Probably numbering in excess of 10,000 in King County alone. Just like in recounts, provisionals tend to favor Democrats, because let’s face it… on average, we simply have more trouble voting. These will be the last ballots to be counted, and could produce a several hundred vote surge for Burner at the very end.

So here’s my not very bold guess: only 40 to 60 percent of ballots have already been counted. That leaves plenty of room for Burner to erase a 2,700 vote deficit.

Both King and Pierce Counties updated their returns for WA-08, and while the margins have started to tighten, Dave Reichert continues to maintain about a 2,700 vote lead.

That said, there are many more ballots left to count in King than in Pierce, which historically only accounts for about 19 percent of the district’s total vote, and if this race follows the usual pattern, we should expect to see the margin continue to tighten as the votes come in, with Burner gradually eating away at Reichert’s lead. Whether she gains enough to overtake Reichert, well… that’s where the drama is.

You’ll notice that both campaigns have been pretty quiet today, not wanting to play the expectations game. I’m guessing that’s because neither campaign really knows which way this one’s going. Provisional ballots tend to substantially favor Democrats, and those will be the last to be counted, so don’t be surprised to see a sudden swing of several hundred votes towards Burner during the final days of the count.

I’m smelling a recount.

UPDATE:
Just to clarify: we don’t know exactly, because ballots are still coming in, but we’ve only counted about 60 percent of the ballots thus far, maybe less. So this thing is far from over.

Rep. Dave Reichert has run out of money, and is pleading with supporters for last minute donations to fund his GOTV efforts.

“This race will be very close: We have had to spend our campaign coffers down to nothing and we still have critical Election Day activities that we must pay for. Can you help Dave in the final push by making a contribution?”

Eh. I wouldn’t worry so much about Dave’s campaign shutting down a day before the election. His party doesn’t seem to have much of a problem engaging in deficit spending.

It’s been a bird-free day — no Seahawks, no Eagles — so tune in for some political football tonight on “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: Do Republicans have a prayer? Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly spent the day checking out the spirit at some of our local mega-churches, and he joins me in the studio to talk about Tuesday’s midterm election, and how the latest sex scandal might impact its outcome. We’ll also be getting a field report from fellow blogger TJ of Loaded Orygun, whose been following some very interesting ballot return trends that could have the red team feeling awfully blue down in the Beaver State.

8PM: Is flipping off the President a fireable offense? An Issaquah school bus driver gave President Bush the finger, and his fellow Republicans cheered when Rep. Dave Reichert took credit for getting the woman fired… credit which Reichert now says he doesn’t deserve. Taking Reichert at his word (that is, his latest word) what does this say about the first-term congressman’s character that he would actually brag about getting the single, working mom fired, when he says he had nothing to do with it? Chris Dugovich from the Washington State Council of County and City Employees will call in to give the driver’s side of the story, and we’ll be playing audio and taking your calls.

9PM: What do you get when you pack four drunken bloggers into the KIRO studio? Will, Mollie and Carl join me almost every week on Podcasting Liberally, recorded live at Seattle’s Montlake Alehouse, and they’ll be joining me in the studio for a Drinking Liberally roundtable discussion of electoral push. Is this the year a big blue wave sweeps the Democrats into power? Or will Karl Rove prove that American democracy is dead, and that nothing short of a violent revolution can dislodge the GOP from the reigns of power? Give us a call and let us know what you think, before all of us liberal bloggers are shipped off to Gitmo.

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

There’s been some gloating from the other side recently about the latest SurveyUSA poll that shows incumbent Dave Reichert leading challenger Darcy Burner by a 51% to 45% margin. Yet these results are at odds with the Majority Watch poll conducted around the same time that shows Burner leading Reichert 49% to 47%.

Of course, both polls are within the margin of error so technically, it’s possible both could be right. But I’m leaning towards the Majority Watch figures, and not just because I want to believe them.

The key number that leaps out at me from the SurveyUSA crosstabs is the stunning fact that Burner holds a comfortable 8 point lead with the one quarter of respondents who have already voted. And this number is not an anomaly. Reliable sources now tell me that both candidates’ internal polls show Burner leading with early voters, though I have no idea by how much.

As one longtime observer of Eastside elections recently explained: “Show me a Democrat leading in early absentees, and I’ll show you a winner.” And he’s not the only one to view early ballots as a meaningful statistic. Despite a plethora of polls showing Republican John Kyl with a steady lead over Democrat Jim Pederson, the DSCC just bought gobs of airtime in Arizona after internal polling showed Pederson leading Kyl by 4% with early voters in that Senate race.

That said, there are other numbers which I find suspect. SurveyUSA shows Reichert leading with both women and independents, results at odds with both the Majority Watch survey, and… well… my intuition. I am particularly struck by Reichert’s purported 10 point lead with independents, a result that defies national trends showing independents breaking towards Democratic candidates by wide margins. Usually, independents tend to split fairly evenly between the two parties, but as Stuart Rothenberg points out today, this isn’t your usual election.

“There just aren’t any independents this year,” joked one Republican strategist I talked with recently. “There are Republicans, Democrats and soft Democrats.”

I dunno. Perhaps 8th CD independents really are different from their national counterparts. Perhaps Reichert’s reputation as “the Sheriff” — deserved or not — really does make him immune to the national Democratic wave. But… I don’t think so.

The civil war in Iraq continues to escalate, with American soldiers caught in the middle. A bomb tore through a crowded Baghdad market yesterday, killing at least 31 and injuring 51 others. At the same time, a marine fighting in Iraq’s Anbar province became the 100th US serviceman killed in October, the highest monthly death toll since President Bush famously announced “mission accomplished.”

Meanwhile, $133 million worth of weaponry has gone missing — nearly 4 percent of the pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other arms the Pentagon has supplied Iraqi security forces. Not that we could track these arms if we wanted, considering that the Defense Department has registered the serial numbers of only 10,000 of the 370,251 weapons it provided — less than 3 percent.

Both these wire stories appeared somewhere in today’s Seattle Times, but apparently neither was important enough to warrant a mention on the op-ed page of the our state’s largest newspaper. Instead, our fair city’s solemn guardians of public discourse chose to dedicate scarce column inches to yet another one-sided, partisan attack: “Denounce the ad, Darcy Burner.”

Compare that to the Seattle P-I, who on the very same morning chose to editorialize on trivial matters… you know… like the escalating violence in Iraq.

The president can’t be held directly responsible because he’s not up for election again. Short of impeachment and history’s harsh judgment, he won’t pay the price for a foreign policy folly that has made the world a more dangerous place.

But those who continue to aid and abet him in this disastrous policy are up for election, in just over a week, and voters across the country can and should hold them accountable.

Unless, of course, we want to stay the course.

As the P-I editorialists point out, in this election, “War is the issue“… an issue their colleagues at the Times seem determined to avoid until after election day. Because the Times knows that if voters do follow the P-I‘s advice, Dave Reichert will lose.

That’s why instead of addressing issues that voters truly care about, the Times editorialists are busy focusing on inside horse race bullshit, and rhetorical legerdemain like demanding Burner pull an accurate ad that she did not run.

Deconstruction anyone? Let’s see…

But there is one TV ad benefiting Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner that is beyond the pale, not because of what it says but because it violates a copyright of TVW, Washington’s public-affairs network.

Oh my. In an age when Karl Rove takes a war hero who left three limbs on the battlefield, and morphs him into Osama bin Laden, it’s an alleged copyright violation that the Times finds “beyond the pale.” How shocking.

But the thing is, the DCCC ad doesn’t violate anybody’s copyright. Reichert spoke for about 20 minutes that day, and by any legal definition the few seconds excerpted by the DCCC constitutes “fair use.” I myself have posted to HA longer clips from Reichert’s speech, and I’ve yet to receive any cease and desist orders from TVW. And if I did, I wouldn’t comply.

To argue that the DCCC has violated TVW’s copyright would be like arguing that I have violated the Seattle Times‘ copyright by block-quoting the paragraph above. If that truly represents Times publisher Frank Blethen’s expert interpretation of the “fair use doctrine” then I challenge the Times to sue me now, because I promise you Frank, I’m going to violate your copyright again. And again and again and again. In fact, you know what Frank..? I’m going to violate you again right now:

Burner should denounce the ad and call for its removal.

Take it like a man Frank, and get used to it… because in this new media landscape of excerpts and aggregation, you’re my bitch.

As to the Times‘ admonition that Burner should call on the DCCC to pull the ad, well, either their editorialists are getting their election law advice from the same quack advising them on fair use, or… they’re simply being disingenuous with their readers. (I’m guessing the latter.) Burner can’t call on the DCCC to pull the ad; that would be illegal. The FEC strictly prohibits coordination between campaigns and organizations engaging in independent expenditures, because otherwise the expenditure wouldn’t be, um… independent.

Like their feigned outrage over nonexistent copyright violations, the call for Burner to pull the ad is a red herring. As is the Times‘ tangential reference to the fact that the Burner campaign had ordered a copy of the tape months ago, as the video has been freely available on the internet to all comers since it first aired in May. (I linked to it way back on June 1.)

In fact, the entire editorial is nothing more than an elaborate (if poorly constructed) straw man argument intended to distract from the simple, devastating truth behind the DCCC’s ad: Dave Reichert publicly admitted that the Republican leadership tells him when to vote against them.

The Times refutes this, accusing the DCCC of taking the quote out of context:

The TV ad depicts Reichert at a meeting saying GOP leadership comes to him and tells him how to vote, and he’ll take the vote.

It omits his next line: “There are some times when I say, ‘No, I won’t.’ “

But what the Times omits is the five minutes of rambling preamble in which Reichert puts the disputed quote entirely in context:

I’ll tell you that back in Washington there are lots of games played and I just want to give you, we talk about freedom and we talk about America and we talk about the dream. The dream has to include everybody and there has to be compromise and we can’t have, I’ve been to district meetings in my district where people have said, “why in the world should I vote for you. It’s just like voting for a democrat for crying out loud.” I am going to vote libertarian and I said, “you know what sir, that would be a huge mistake and here’s why.” I’ve tried to explain to this person how things work a little bit back in Washington D.C. and why certain votes have to be taken. Sometimes the leadership comes to me and says “Dave we want you to vote a certain way” and they know I can do that over here. Another district isn’t a problem but over here I have to be very flexible of where I placed my votes. The big picture here is to keep the seat, keep the majority, and keep the country moving forward with republican ideals. Especially on the budget and protecting our troops who’re protecting this country and how that will be responsible with taxpayer dollars. That’s the big picture. Not the vote I place on ANWAR that you may not agree with or the vote that I placed on protecting salmon. You have to be flexible. So when the leadership comes to me and says , Dave you have to vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority, I do it. There are sometimes when I say no I won’t. There are sometimes when things come to the floor like Schiavo. I was one of five republicans that voted with the Democrats on Schiavo because that was the right thing to do.

Yes, Reichert broke with the GOP leadership on the Schiavo vote. He’d personally been through a wrenching end-of-life decision in his own family, and so he says he voted his conscience. (It didn’t hurt that he also voted with his district.) But that’s the only vote of conscience he cites.

Taken in the context of the entire speech, Reichert makes it absolutely clear that conservative Republicans should ignore his handful of moderate votes on things like the environment because “certain votes have to be taken” in order to “keep the seat.” Reichert bluntly (and stupidly) told the audience that the leadership tells him when to vote against them, and that is exactly what his audience of Republican elected officials understood him to say. How do I know? Two of them told me. State Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45) called the confession “shocking,” but went on to explain…

To be clear, by saying “it was shocking” I was expressing the surprise I felt at the time that Rep. Reichert was so open and frank about being approached in this manner, not at the fact that it happened. It is, in fact, quite common for majority party leadership to go to freshman members of their party and provide such guidance, in order to provide cover for those freshmen in their first re-election campaign when they are most vulnerable to challenge. It happens quite frequently in the Washington State House of Representatives, too.

Surely, the Times editorialists understand this. They read my blog. They’ve seen Nixon’s quote. They know how the political game is played.

And yet they continue to defend Reichert’s cynically manufactured image as a “conscience-driven independent,” because they also understand that his reelection hopes pivot on his ability to separate himself in the eyes of voters from President Bush, the Republican leadership and their failed policies at home and abroad.

That is what this latest anti-Burner editorial is all about. The DCCC ad is devastatingly effective because it uses Reichert’s own words to debunk his myth of independence. It also shows up the Times‘ stubborn defense of Reichert’s fictional independence as either stupid or dishonest. (Again, I’m guessing the latter.)

Indeed, the Times incessant Burning-bashing is almost comical in its logic. When Reichert’s media folks aren’t making up quotes out of whole cloth, they rely on single-word quotations like an ad for a bad movie… and yet it’s the Democrats who the Times accuses of lifting quotes out of context. And while Reichert has run a relentlessly negative and at times sexist campaign, it is Burner who Times editorialist Kate Riley accuses of “conjuring rage.” (Curiously, in her unsigned editorial endorsing Reichert, Riley criticizes Burner for her lack of public service, yet apparently believes she’s more than qualified to represent the voters of the 4th CD. Go figure.)

Yes, Burner has attempted to define her opponent through strongly worded TV spots, but then, so has Reichert. No wonder so many readers, bloggers and journalists have found it absolutely impossible to take seriously the Times‘ one-sided, I’m-rubber-you’re-glue, reality-distorted portrayal of this race.

The truth is, the Times doesn’t want their readers to take this race seriously, because if they seriously discussed the issues at stake — the issues that matter most to local voters — Reichert would lose. That’s why instead of editorializing on the Bush administration’s failed policy in Iraq — a policy Reichert has given every indication he would continue to support — the Times has instead chosen to focus on a bullshit, manufactured, campaign ad dispute that voters couldn’t care less about.

Reichert said what he said: he votes the way the leadership tells him to vote. And that is why he’s going to lose this election.

UPDATE:
Per Another TJ’s suggestion:

The latest round of polling from Constituent Dynamics and RT Strategies shows Washington’s 8th and 5th Congressional Districts both within the margin of error just two weeks prior to the election.

In WA-08, Democrat Darcy Burner now leads incumbent Dave Reichert 49% to 47%. In WA-05, incumbent Cathy McMorris leads Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark 51% to 46%. Both polls were conducted Oct 24-26, and are within their 3.1% margin of error.

I haven’t had a chance to look at the cross-tabs, but it’s interesting to note that when you have an incumbent as well known as Reichert, undecideds tend to swing towards the challenger. As for Goldmark, climbing within five points is incredible considering that two years ago McMorris won by 20, and he’s only been campaigning since April — if the wave is big enough, Goldmark is in a position to be swept into office.

Both races will be determined by turnout.

As reported yesterday on Daily Kos, the GOP is pulling out all the stops in WA-05, sliming Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark with outrageous lies and dirty tricks. You know, like harassing voters with obscene, automated phone calls, waking people up at all hours of the night, claiming to be coming from the Goldmark campaign. (Would you vote for a candidate who robo-calls you at 2 am? The McMorris campaign didn’t think so.) Local police and the FBI are now investigating.

Why are McMorris and the Republicans resorting to such desperate tactics? Because, well… they’re desperate.

As reported this morning by The Hill, the NRCC just sent to donors its “Final Push List” of the 33 GOP members and candidates “most in need of support right now.” And lookie who’s on it.

In an e-mail to congressional officials, NRCC PAC Director Jenny Sheffield states, “…it’s crucial at this point to send in some late money to some [of] our campaigns. The funds our candidates receive now will allow them to increase their TV buys and will make the difference on Nov. 7.

“I have attached our Final Push list for those Members and candidates most in need of support right now. If your boss has not maxed out to those on the attached list, please ask him or her to consider sending a check from a leadership PAC and/or reelection account … IMMEDIATELY!”

Republicans have also sent the list to lobbyists, seeking donations. The NRCC list (see chart) has many endangered Republicans, including four each from Ohio and New York, and three from Pennsylvania. It also contains some surprises, such as Rep. Cathy McMorris (R-Wash.), whose seat was considered safe earlier this month.

I’m not one to say “I told you so,” but… no wait… I am. I told you so. I’ve been warning the Spokane media for months that one of the biggest stories of the ’06 midterms was developing in their own backyard. Well, welcome to the party guys.

Other at-risk Northwest Republicans on the Final Push List? Well, Dave Reichert in WA-08 and Bill Sali in ID-01 of course. As The Hill points out, it’s gonna be an awfully long election night for House Republicans if they’re so worried about protecting seats in conservative districts in places like Idaho and Eastern WA.

Still don’t believe me that Goldmark can win? Then perhaps you’ll believe McMorris:

In Washington’s 5th Congressional District, where former speaker Thomas S. Foley (D) famously lost in 1994 when Republicans seized control of the House, confirmation of an unexpectedly strong Democratic challenge emerged in recent days from a well-placed source: the Republican incumbent, Rep. Cathy McMorris.

“It’s a closer race than I first imagined,” she told Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), according to the Spokesman-Review, a newspaper in Spokane. Changing voter attitudes in her conservative, mostly rural district, she said, have been “pretty dramatic.”

McMorris and Craig apparently thought they were speaking privately before the start of a campaign teleconference with veterans. But an operator had connected Spokesman-Review reporter Jim Camden, who was on mute and could not announce his presence.

Craig, who is not up for reelection, told McMorris that she was not alone in feeling Democratic heat. “The new numbers are just devastating,” he reportedly said.

McMorris’s Democratic opponent is Peter Goldmark, a rancher whose surprising strength has attracted the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which last week began spending $323,000 on television ads opposing McMorris.

That said, Republicans are sinking millions of dollars into Washington state in a last ditch effort to save McMorris and Reichert’s asses, and we can’t let Peter and Darcy become victims of their own success. This is the final push, and if we want to win we need to stay competitive dollar for dollar.

299 of my readers have now contributed $22,969.38 via HA’s Act Blue page, but we need to do more. If you care about the future direction of our nation, please give whatever you can to Darcy and Peter so that they can afford to get their message out to voters and respond to their opponents’ lies. And if you’ve already given all you can, then please personally plead with your friends and family to give whatever they can afford.

We’ve got the issues. We’ve got the candidates. We’ve got the wave. The rest is up to you.

From Sunday’s Seattle P-I:

P-I Endorsement: Burner is better

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

This newspaper didn’t endorse Republican Dave Reichert for the 8th Congressional District House race two years ago because he then faced a bright, terribly well-informed Democrat whose votes we believed would better represent the district and serve the nation.

This time, Reichert faces an even more substantial Democratic challenger in Darcy Burner.

Nonetheless, we believe it’s only responsible to be able to first make a case for removing and incumbent, no matter how impressive the challenger.

Reichert is a man seemingly pulled into elective office, first when the King County sheriff’s position to which he had been appointed was changed to an elected office, and then when asked to run for Congress, largely on the strength of his fame in the Green River case.

Once in Washington, D.C., to his credit, Reichert bucked House leadership and President Bush on some controversial votes, including stem cell research and the disgraceful business of Terri Schiavo.

But Reichert has been on the wrong side of votes regarding minimum wage, tax cuts, Tom DeLay’s ethics and, most recently, detention and trial of foreign detainees.

Burner, a former Microsoft manager, is as informed in her views as she is forceful in delivering them. Frankly, at a P-I Editorial Board session, it was difficult to tell who was the incumbent because her answers carried weight.

From how to balance the federal budget (and how urgent it is to do so) to how crucial it is to reduce human contributions to global climate change to Congress’ role in Iraq war policy, Burner has the better grasp of the issues and the greater passion to deal with them.

It’s a fairly strong endorsement, but notice how it’s neither mean-spirited nor totally one sided. And notice how it focuses on issues instead of some bullshit, I’m-rubber-your-glue, NRCC talking point about Darcy running a negative campaign. Notice how it’s written by grownups.

According to the latest FEC filings, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent $425,000 attacking Darcy Burner… yesterday alone. This brings the NRCC’s grand total to over $1.3 million dollars in WA-08, all of it spent on attack ads.

Darcy could potentially become a victim of her own success. This supposedly “third tier” challenger is now drawing first tier attention from the NRCC, which has made her one of its top ten targets over the past few weeks.

The good news is that this is a clear demonstration of the netroots’ “50-State Strategy” at work. Ten months ago the NRCC wasn’t expecting to spend much money defending Dave Reichert’s seat, but Darcy’s strong challenge has forced them to pull money from other races, leaving the door open for challengers like Peter Goldmark to sneak up on incumbents like Cathy McMorris in Washington’s 5th Congressional District. The bad news is that unless Darcy has the resources to respond, and Peter has the cash to out-flank the R’s out West, both Reichert and McMorris could eke out victories.

That’s where you come in. Darcy needs to raise $500,000 during the month of October to stay competitive, and Peter’s budget requires bringing in about half that. So to help them meet their goals and bring a Democratic majority to Congress, I’m asking you to join me in a bold and innovative fundraising experiment.

Since March, 234 of you have contributed over $17,000 to Burner and Goldmark via my Act Blue page, a truly amazing performance that gives the HA community one of the highest dollar to reader ratios of any blog in the nation. On several occasions I have personally asked you to give to these two campaigns, and you have responded. I promised you that these races would become competitive, and with your help they have.

I am now asking you to make the same sort of personal appeal to your friends and family, not just in Washington state, but throughout the nation. The goal: to double the number of contributions via HA’s Act Blue page between now and October 31.

If only 50 of HA’s thousands of readers respond to my challenge and bring in just five new donors each, we will easily meet our target. If the 234 of you who have already made generous donations bring in only one new contributor each, well… you can do the math for yourself.

Here is what I am asking you to do. I want you to put together a list of like-minded friends and relatives, and I want you to email them and personally beg them to give money to Darcy and Peter. If they say no, ask them again. If they do not respond, I want you to give them a call. I want you to personally plead with them that this election may be our best and last shot at turning our nation around, and that Darcy and Peter will be leaders that will make them proud.

I’m not going to tell you exactly what to write or say; you know these people best, so you are the best person to craft an appeal. But I do want you to set a personal goal — say, 10 new contributors — and specifically ask your friends and family to help you reach your target. I also suggest that you emphasize that any amount will help, even as little as $10.00 — although experience shows that most people will give more.

Finally, I want you to embed in your email the following link — http://actblue.com/page/horsesass?refcode=OctDrive — to facilitate giving, and to keep track of our progress. And if you want, you can replace “OctDrive” with an alphanumeric string of your choice to identify your own efforts, and at the end of the month I will list the fundraising results for each of you. Think of it as a friendly competition.

Darcy and Peter personally reached out to me. I have personally reached out to you. And now you need to reach out to your friends and family and personally ask them to make that final effort to put us over the top this November.

We are counting on you. We are counting on us.

Constituent Dynamics just released a new round of polls in 48 of the most competitive House contests around the nation, and they show the Democrats currently ahead in the race for control of the House by a 224 to 205 seat margin. Of course, it’s only a poll, and the election is still almost 4 weeks away… but I’d rather be a Democrat right now than a Republican.

Here in WA-08 the poll shows Dave Reichert leading challenger Darcy Burner, 48% to 45% — well within the poll’s 3.09% margin of error. Six weeks ago Constituent Dynamics shocked local race watchers by reporting Burner leading Reichert, 49% to 46% — also within the margin of error. But since then the results have been corroborated by a number of public and private polls, all of which show the race within the margin.

There can be no doubt now that WA-08 is a dead heat; the candidate who does the better job of getting their message out over the next few weeks, wins. Of course, Reichert still has a cash-on-hand advantage, so if you want to give Burner the resources she needs to take this seat, please give now.

There was an overflow crowd at the much anticipated Darcy Burner/Dave Reichert debate, and so most of us flowed over to Drinking Liberally to debate amongst ourselves.

Joining me in our unique brand of drunken debate were Mollie, Will, Carl, Sandeep and Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly. Will gives us a first-hand account from the Burner/Reichert debate, Joel reports from his recent trip through the political wilds of Montana, and Sandeep fills us in on his futile existence begging editorial boards to oppose an initiative sponsored by the newspaper industry… and yet once again, I seem to do most of the talking. Go figure.

The show is 56:44, and is available here as a 40.9 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

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

I am not afraid, I’ve had people point guns at me.
— Rep. Dave Reichert

“He desecrated the victims. The public ought to know that.” Tomas Guillen is describing Republican 8th District Congressman Dave Reichert and his manipulation of the Green River murder investigation and the arrest of Gary Ridgway to climb up into party politics.

Guillen’s no political firebrand, he’s a respected Seattle University journalism and criminal justice professor. But as a Seattle Times reporter, he covered the Green River story from its beginnings and has written two books on the subject.

His academic text, Serial Killers: Issues Explored Through the Green River Murders, and Ridgway attorney Mark Prothero’s Defending Gary, both written after Reichert’s 2004 election, tell a starkly different story than does Reichert’s ghost-written autohagiography, Chasing the Devil, My Twenty-Year Quest to Capture the Green River Killer.

Reichert’s record as sheriff was exposed in last week’s devastating reporting by the P-I’s Lewis Kamb who found plenty of former colleagues who’d reveal him to be “an ambitious self-promoter, an inexperienced manager prone to poor decisions, even a close-minded detective more obstacle than asset to a serial murder investigation.”

Reichert refused to be interviewed in person for the P-I’s piece, preferring to answer the reporter’s questions in writing. He did not return our attempts at contact.

(The written material, and people we’ve talked to use some strong adjectives to describe the former Sheriff’s professional behavior: manipulative, self-serving, amateurish, ambitious, creepy, bungling, inappropriate, opportunistic, egotistical, voyeuristic, and stubborn. These are quite different from the descriptives we’ve been hearing for years: heroic, gracious, sensitive, muscular, chivalrous, well-mannered, brave, clean and reverent. You decide).

Sheriff Reichert became the public face of the sensational arrest of the serial killer by elbowing his way in front of the cameras on November 30, 2000 when the sensational collar was announced.

Everyone knows Reichert is the guy who caught the Green River killer- Why? Because he reminds us in every introduction; every speech, interview, and on his website.

It helped get him elected in 2004 in his race against KIRO radio host, Dave Ross; and he still flogs it every time he opens his mouth in his race against Darcy Burner.

Recently, on KUOW’s Weekday with Steve Scher, (in a rare appearance in a venue where he might be seriously questioned) he referenced serial killers no fewer than three times in one hour on the local NPR talk show despite being asked no questions on the subject by Scher, who’s unused to politicians who drop blood instead of names.

Here’s an example: Why is Reichert against abortion? He told a interviewer recently, “I have a great respect for life. I’ve seen a lot of death in my career, worked Green River, seen lots of dead bodies.”

Back in Washington, the Honorable Mr. Reichert is known as the Man from Green River- his longest speech on the House floor during his lackluster first term was about “capturing” Gary Ridgway.

The release of Chasing the Devil, in late July, 2004 was exquisitely synched-up with his primary campaign which was a difficult one with a crowded Republican field anxious to replace the retiring Jennifer Dunn.

Bolstered by both his publisher’s marketing and his own political campaign, it was a perfect PR storm. Reichert’s face was thrust onto the front pages of local papers. He was interviewed on CNN and Court TV in full dress uniform (and every hair present and accounted for) talking about “capturing” the killer.

“Reichert used the serial murder case to move forward,” Guillen told BlatherWatch. “It was a travesty.” Photos released when Ridgway was arrested show Reichert in a suit posing in the bottom of a ravine near the Des Moines Highway.

“He used the grave site of a murder victim for personal ambition,” he says.

Meanwhile, his opponents, Bellevue Councilman Conrad Lee, State Sen. Luke Esser and (now GOP State Chairman) Diane Tebelius were lucky if they made page B-1 with their little coffee klatches, blah-blah press releases, and cheesy meet & greets.

(Chasing the Devil was neither a literary nor a popular success. P-I books critic, John Marshall wrote that Reichert painted himself as “muscular, charismatic, devoutly Christian, a dogged mix of Dudley Do-Right and the Lone Ranger.” Not exactly a bestseller: you can now buy a like new copy on Amazon for $1.74.)

Although otherwise a failure, his book as a political instrument was inspired. Media was flooded with pictures of the sheriff in a hunky muscle shirt sifting for bones at a body dump site, or in full Sheriffian regalia sternly leaning into and staring down the cowering serial killer from across a table. Reichert won the primary easily and got a tremendous knee-up in the November election.

(There’s his hair. It’s magnificent. Dave Ross told us: “He’s got great hair, he’s acknowledged he’s got great hair.” He’s known in legal circles as “Sheriff Hairspray.” [Reichert’s hair]… is always ready for the next photo opportunity,” says Prothero).

“My standing orders were that we were going to campaign on issues,” says Dave Ross. “Rumors I got about Dave or the Green River killer or the release of the book- we weren’t going to touch them.”

But there’s more than a little resume inflation going on in Chasing the Devil. There’s some obfuscatin’. Reichert had been “lead detective” in 1982 as the first bodies surfaced in and around the Green River. His book, however, would let you believe he held the title until 1990, never mentioning that several other detectives led in later murders.

The book is more than three quarters done before he makes passing reference to the fact that the task force had commanders over the “lead detectives.” Former Detective Bob Keppel told the P-I, Reichert was “one detective among many,” and never led discussions about the direction of the task force as a true leader would have.

Actually, he had little to do with the investigation having left the task force in 1990 to climb the bureaucratic ladder in the Sheriff’s Department. What’s more, these new accounts show how Reichert’s tremendous ego was responsible for early police blunders that stalled the investigation and let Gary Ridgway continue killing for decades.

But great hair or not, “He got elected based on Green River, when in fact, he didn’t solve it and he didn’t win against Gary Ridgway,” says Guillen.”

The fact is: technology caught the killer, not Detective Reichert’s dogged shoe-leather sleuthing as his press so dramatically implies. Even then, on Sheriff Reichert’s watch, the saliva sample that could have busted Ridgway as early as 1996 when the DNA technology became available, was not tested until 2001.

Women died in that interim.
~
Read It’s the Green River, Stupid: Part 2, the really creepy parts here.

The Seahawks are off today and I’m back with a vengeance, so strap on your helmut and get ready to butt heads with me on an action-packed “The David Goldstein Show” tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: Is the Republican Party in the midst of major meltdown? University of Maryland associate professor of political science Thomas Schaller joins me to discuss the latest developments in the Mark Foley House Page scandal, and the impact it is having on Capitol Hill and in congressional races nationwide. Schaller’s just released new book, “Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South” seems downright prescient in light the suddenly competitive races in WA-05, ID-01 and other supposed Republican strongholds in the rural West.

8PM: Peace activist Cindy Sheehan joins me to talk about her new book, “Peace Mom: A Mother’s Journey through Heartache to Activism.” Sheehan’s dramatic month-long vigil outside President Bush’s “ranch” in Crawford, TX transformed her from a grieving mom into the symbol of a nascent anti-war movement, ultimately focusing national attention on the moral implications of our war in Iraq. Sheehan is one of those unusual figures who generates both heartfelt praise and sometimes vicious, hateful criticism. If you’ve got a question for the controversial activist, here’s your chance.

9PM: Lock your desk drawers KIRO colleagues, for local radio’s most hated snoop is in the building! Michael Hood of the much-despised, inside-radio blog blatherWatch will join me in the studio… but we won’t be engaging in any radio industry rumor mongering. Instead we’ll be discussing Rep. Dave Reichert, and his undeserved, self-inflated, law enforcement reputation. Fresh on the heals of the Seattle P-I’s excellent exploration of Reichert’s record in the King County Sheriff’s department, Hood will give us a sneak peak at his long awaited expose on “The Sheriff’s” real role in catching the Green River Killer.

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