Search Results for: Dave Reichert

The Seattle Times reports today that the US Chamber of Commerce is lying on Dave Reichert’s behalf in radio ads that falsely accuse Darcy Burner of supporting “higher taxes on families with children.”  Imagine that.

The radio spot, which started airing Friday in local markets, is part of a $20 million national ad buy with which the U.S. Chamber is supporting some House and Senate candidates.

And that’s on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars the Chamber has spent over the past half decade or so, backing conservative, pro-business candidates in local judicial, executive and legislative races nationwide.  We’re talking maybe half a billion dollars from the US Chamber alone.

One of the criticisms I’ve heard of Darcy’s 2006 campaign was her failure to effectively fight back against the many lies that were told by Reichert and his surrogates, but the 2008 campaign seems much more responsive.  In fact, they’ve already cut a new radio ad that will start running tonight on both KOMO and KIRO:

[audio:https://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/burner_special_interest_friends_v2.mp3]

It’ll take of lot of work for Darcy to win in November, but job one is refuting the lies before they have time to take hold.

It would have felt good to see Darcy Burner come out of yesterday’s primary with a modest victory.  Good, but not especially comfortable considering the low turnout, partial results and unfathomable dynamics of our new top-two primary.  But at what will likely be less than a three-point deficit to Dave Reichert once all the votes are counted, I’m not feeling especially uncomfortable either.

On the obvious down side, Reichert ended up on top, and by a similar margin as his 2006 general election victory.  But on the up side, Reichert was held significantly below 50 percent… not a great place to be for a two-term incumbent.  Indeed, according to a memo distributed today by Burner pollster Celinda Lake, Reichert’s demonstrated lack of support should be “sobering news” for the incumbent:

[D]espite his turnout advantages, the incumbent has been held under 50 percent of the primary vote, and the combined Democratic vote is greater than the Republican vote. This is sobering news for Reichert. The top two system, which allows for voters to split tickets on the primary ballot, most closely resembles the blanket primary system that prevailed in Washington State prior to 2003. Our research indicates that in the 94 congressional races that took place under a blanket primary between 1982 and 2002, the incumbent failed to register 50 percent of the primary tally in 10 of those contests. In seven of those contests, the challenger went on to victory in November…

Prior results do not guarantee future performance and all that, but it’s hardly a bleak situation for Darcy, who finds herself in a significantly stronger position than she was in at this stage of the 2006 race.  Heading toward November Darcy can expect a resource advantage, a turnout advantage and presidential coattails to help carry her through to victory.  And even yesterday’s results show progress; I don’t know of a single  public or private poll that showed Darcy closer than six points to Reichert in recent months, and yet after only two weeks of advertising (at a cost, I’m guessing, of about $400,000) she’s managed to cut that gap in half.  By comparison, an August 21-22 2006 SurveyUSA poll gave Reichert a 54-41 percent lead, a 13-point margin Darcy eventually whittled down to three by election day.

So yeah, I’d rather be up three points than down, but given all the same caveats I issued in my discussion of the governor’s race, I’m no more or less worried than I was Tuesday morning.  For if there’s a conclusion to be drawn from the primary results, it’s that this race is once again going to come down to the wire.  And that’s something we’ve known all along.

So what explains Dave Reichert’s pro-oil industry energy agenda in the face of skyrocketing fuel costs and the dire consequences of carbon-induced climate change?  Well, maybe we should just ask some of Dave’s pals who set up that lucrative K Street funder for him… you know, energy industry lobbyists like Dan Maloney (American Petroleum Institute), Brett Shogren (Exelon Corp.), Mike Chappell (Edison International) and Matt Lapinski (Frontier Oil)?

I’m just sayin’.

So… Dave Reichert, struggling to keep pace with Darcy Burner’s overwhelming support from individual contributors, turns to a group of high-powered lobbyists for a quick infusion of cash—including lobbyists representing Airbus parent EADS against Boeing in the controversial tanker deal—and what’s the headline in the Seattle Times? “Words fly over lobbyist for Boeing rival at Reichert fundraiser.”

That’s right, EADS lobbyist Mike Chappell writes Reichert a $500 check and the main story here is the accusation itself, with the Times emphasizing that “Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik leaked the EADS lobbyist tie to the online political newspaper Politico.”

“Leaked…?” Really?

leak -verb
9. to disclose secret, esp. official, information anonymously, as to the news media

A) Kaushik is Burner’s communication director; it’s his job to pass information on to the press, even damaging information about her opponent; and B) How exactly do you “leak” information that had already appeared in an article in Roll Call?

All Kaushik did was call Politico’s attention to the fact that an article in Roll Call contradicted editorializing that had appeared in their own publication, causing Politico to write a follow-up story when they determined that the info in Roll Call checked out. And that added tidbit about Chappell writing Reichert a check? That came from good, old fashioned “sleuthing” on the part of the Times reporter Emily Heffter. That’s some “leak.”

Reichert goes begging to lobbyists paid to oppose the interests of his district, and it’s “words flying” that makes the headline, and the Burner campaign’s role in publicizing Reichert’s Airbus connections that makes the lede. And Reichert gets a check from Airbus, but that’s okay, because he says he plans to return it, you know… after he was caught. Jesus… could the Times pedal any softer?

But then, Reichert is the Times’ favorite “conscience driven independent,” so I guess we’re unlikely to see a piece criticizing Reichert for publicly posturing in defense of Boeing against the Alabama/French Connection, and then going back to the other Washington to quietly solicit support from the very people he’s supposedly opposing… folks like EADS lobbyist Chappell, Alabama Aircraft Industries lobbyist Chris Cox, former Tom DeLay henchman (and co-conspirator) Drew Maloney, and the rest of the K Street crowd.

The Times knows damn well how damaging this story really is—hell, it’s exactly crap like this that has destroyed the Republican brand. The “K Street Project,” the “Culture of Corruption,” the cozy relationship between the Republican leadership and their corporate patrons… this is why Democrats took control of both houses in 2006, and this is why they are poised to expand their majority in 2008. And whatever his intentions when he first headed off to Congress, Dave Reichert now finds himself smack dab in the middle of everything that is wrong with the Beltway establishment, totally reliant on (and indebted to) lobbyists and PACs in his desperate efforts to fend off Burner’s challenge.

Darcy Burner on the other hand, with her people-powered politics and her thousands upon thousands of small contributions from individual donors, is indebted to nothing but her own conscience. So if 8th CD voters really want to send somebody to Congress who can truly challenge the corrupting influence of the K Street crowd in both parties, they need to elect a representative who doesn’t have to rely on these very same lobbyists to fund their campaigns. They need to elect Darcy Burner.

Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert released their July fundraising totals today in advance of WA’s August 19 primary, and as reported by Postman (or maybe Emily Heffter, I’m kinda confused) it wasn’t even close.

Rep. Dave Reichert, the two-term Republican incumbent, raised $115,474 during July, compiling $929,113 in cash on hand.

Democratic challenger Darcy Burner raised more — $350,837– during July, and reported having almost $1.5 million in the bank. […] Burner has been outpacing Reichert in fundraising throughout the campaign, but she’s also been spending more.

“Burner raised more” …?  Talk about an understatement.  She raised over three times more.  And while yeah, sure, Burner’s numbers were pumped up by the incredible outpouring of affection and support in the wake of the fire that claimed her home, her cat and all her belongings, Reichert’s numbers are truly pathetic, barely covering his $100K in expenses for the month.

And as to Postman’s (Heffter’s?) assertion that Burner’s “also spending more,” um… no she hasn’t.  So far both campaigns have spent about a million dollars over the cycle, with Reichert actually outspending Burner by a few thousand dollars.

Running for office is hard work, and it’s beginning to look like Reichert just isn’t up to the task.  For example, Reichert relied on PAC money to make up over 55% of his anemic July total, whereas Burner only raised 5% from PACs.  That kind of disparity tells you a lot about both candidates’ work ethic, and their allegiances.

Following up on Darryl’s post, SurveyUSA also came out with polling numbers last night, posting results in the governor’s race, a 49-46 Gregoire lead, right in line with the 47-45 advantage reported by Strategic Vision. Neither pollster sees much movement in this race over recent weeks.

SurveyUSA also polled the 8th CD race, where they find Dave Reichert leading Darcy Burner 50-44, again, virtually unchanged from six weeks ago. I’d be lying if told you I wouldn’t rather see Darcy closing the gap, but she hasn’t yet started advertising, and I honestly doubt if the Reichert camp is taking much comfort in these results. In fact, given the way his campaign has been trying to tamp down expectations for the August primary, I’d sure love to take a gander at Reichert’s internal numbers.

“We wouldn’t be surprised if Darcy took first in the primary,” Reichert spokeswoman Amanda Halligan recently told Roll Call. “Historically, Democrats have had higher turnout in the primaries than Republicans.” This is the same message the Reichert camp pushed yesterday through the Evans-Novak Report, which emphasizes without substantiation that Burner is “heavily favored” in the August primary.

Huh. Really? Well, I suppose… that is, if your idea of “historically” means going back only as far as 2006 ( the only 8th CD race to use the now defunct “pick a party” primary), when Darcy Burner did indeed win the primary 51-49, only to see it flip the other way in November. But I think a more accurate historical perspective would be to look at how the late Rep. Jennifer Dunn fared as an incumbent, under the blanket primary rules our new top-two primary attempts to emulate.

2002	Primary	General
Dunn	64.0%	59.8%
Behrens-Benedict	33.5%	37.3%
2000
Dunn	60.7%	62.2%
Behrens-Benedict	37.1%	35.6%
1998
Dunn	65.6%	59.7%
Behrens-Benedict	34.3%	40.2%

Democrats always have higher turnout in primaries than Republicans? As you can see, history tells us no such thing. In fact, history really doesn’t tell us anything useful about primary vs general turnout patterns considering this is the first ever 8th CD primary to occur in August, not to mention our first ever to use the top-two format.

I don’t know if Reichert’s pre-primary spin that Burner is “heavily favored” is based on sheer bullshit, or on some pretty nasty internal polling. But it sure ain’t based on history.

When you’re the 419th 401st most powerful member of the House of Representatives, chances at the national limelight are few and far between. You must carefully weigh which, of the many pressing issues facing the body politic, you can expend your limited political capital advocating for. You don’t get many chances to shine; you gotta make ’em count.

So it’s sorta fascinating, in a gruesome car wreck kind of way, to see Rep. Dave Reichert (“Conscience Driven Independent™”-WA) in the pages of The Hill’s Congress Blog on Friday, taking a bold stance against the impeachment of President Bush:

As one of the nine Republicans crossing party lines yesterday on the vote moving Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, I cast my vote not to hold hearings, but to move the bill off the House Floor so the House could focus on more important issues….

There are less than 30 legislative days left in the Congressional calendar. And this is what we are voting on? No wonder the country has lost faith in Congress. There are so many things that we need to take action on and impeachment votes that are guaranteed not to pass is not one of them.

Now, it’s pretty hard to argue with the assertion that members of the House of Representatives should, you know, do stuff. Although a reasonable observer might add that, with fewer than 30 legislative days left in his fourth year of Congressional service, Sheriff Dave has thus selected as good a time as any to start. Had he actually started to do anything.

Plus, to be sure, no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors the Bush cabal has committed — and they are undoubtably legion — genuine impeachment, based on a full accounting of those crimes, at this point isn’t even physically possible; Republicans and Democrats alike have so run the clock out on Bush’s second term without mounting any sort of serious investigation of their crimes that at this point none could be conducted in time. Politically, it’s preposterous to think it could or would happen anyway. Neither party’s leadership is interested in turning over that rock.

So why is Reichert wasting his time writing about it?

More to the point, why is Reichert wasting his miniscule influence defending a widely reviled administration he’s supposed to be independent of? (Except for fundraisers.) (And his voting record.) And why does he think it’s a waste of time to investigate some of the crimes that have helped create those crises (illegal wars, soaring energy costs, an economy crippled by deregulated and corrupt financial dealings) he’s failed to help address for four years?

And if crimes leading to multiple crises crippling the country aren’t worth tying up the House’s time, why did his party think impeachment over lying about a blow job was worth bringing Congress to a full stop for over a year?

You’d almost think Reichert was using a meaningless vote to try to score exactly the sort of cheap political points he was allegedly deploring, on behalf of an administration he is allegedly independent of. But then, that’s exactly the sort of expediency-driven political hackery we’ve come to expect from the Seattle Times’ favorite “moderate.”

Kudos to Seattle Times reporter Emily Heffter for giving a little space to the well documented thesis that Rep. Dave Reichert has been manipulating his voting record to appear more moderate than he is:

Often, he votes with Republicans on procedural motions, then switches sides and votes with Democrats in the final roll call.

For example, on an energy bill last year, Reichert voted with his fellow Republicans several times — against Democratic motions to close the bill to amendments and bring it to a vote. But in the final vote, he sided with Democrats to pass the bill.

“How can you end up on both sides of the vote?” asked Sandeep Kaushik, Burner’s spokesman.

Kaushik says Reichert in fact is trying to manipulate his image to ensure his re-election. Reichert rarely casts the deciding vote when going against his party on an important issue, Kaushik says, and he joins the Democrats when they are going to win anyway.

Sure the refutation doesn’t come until more than halfway through Heffter’s 1200 word piece, and well away from the prime front page real estate on which the article starts, but no reporter has given more thought or space to exploring beneath the surface of Reichert’s actual voting record, despite the fact that his tactics are both common and, well, obvious. How common?

Reichert wouldn’t be the first to use that strategy, said Matt Barreto, a UW political-science professor.

“It is a common thing that you see a lot that allows a politician to portray themselves a moderate,” he said.

And how obvious? Well, listen to Reichert explain his voting record before a gathering of Republicans back in 2006 (courtesy of TVW’s new player widget):

“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.”

That’s Dave Reichert, “conscience driven independent,” in his own damn words… words backed up by Dan Kirkdorffer’s meticulous fisking of Reichert’s voting record, but words which the media have for the most part ignored when addressing the issue of Reichert’s alleged political moderation.  Reichert explains “how things work” back in the other Washington, political science professors validate it and his own voting record demonstrates it.  And yet our local news media, desperately longing for that mythical creature known as the modern moderate Republican, have been complicit in presenting this pro-war, pro-Bush, anti-choice congressman as somehow a perfect fit for his suburban swing district.

Darcy Burner, on the other hand, has somehow been given the label of being too progressive for her district, though on what specific issues the gatekeepers of conventional wisdom never bother to tell us.  On the war?  You can read her Responsible Plan on ending the war for yourself, and see if it’s out of step with the voters in WA-08.  Too progressive on reproductive rights?  On FISA?  On the economy?

Heffter’s piece is a great first step toward setting the record straight on Reichert’s record, but we can’t rely on our local media to tell the whole story.  Darcy is going to have to do that herself, and it’s going to cost a lot of money.  That’s why she needs your help.

Today is the last day of the fundraising quarter, and heading into the homestretch, pundits and big donors are going to size up the competitiveness of the various races based on its outcome.  So please give today and help Darcy hit her end of quarter target.  That’s the only way we’re going to dispel the Reichert myth.

Washington Post political blog The Fix has bumped WA-08 up a couple notches to list it as the 17th most likely US House seat to flip parties this November:

17. Washington’s 8th (R): Every Republican strategist we talk to insists on the one hand that Rep. Dave Reichert is the only GOPer who could possibly hold this Seattle-area seat but on the other acknowledges that Reichert’s time may be up. Barack Obama at the top of the national ticket is bad news for Reichert, as the Democrats’ presidential candidate will roll up the vote in metropolitan Seattle. Darcy Burner, who took 49 percent of the vote in 2006 against Reichert, is, by all accounts, an improved candidate. The political environment is everything in this district. If Obama wins big in the 8th, he is likely to carry Burner along with him. (Previous ranking: 19)

Yeah, but then what do you expect from an amen blogger like Chris Cillizza?

SurveyUSA released the first poll of the season in the 8th CD race between Darcy Burner and Rep. Dave Reichert.

The poll surveyed 679 likely voters on June 16th and 17th, and showed Reichert leading Burner 51% to 45%.

As usual, I try to assess these poll results by a simple Monte Carlo analysis. I simulated a million fictitious elections between Burner and Reichert, using the observed percentages and the number of people polled.

Reichert won 948,339 of the elections and Burner won 48,199 times. In other words, the poll results suggest that, for an election held right now, Burner would have a 4.8% probability of winning the election and Reichert would win with a 95.2% probability.

Here is the distribution of outcomes (percentage of votes) from the million simulated elections (Reichert victories are those to the left of the red “tie” line, Burner victories are those to the right):

At risk of coming off as just another amen blogger, the poll results don’t strike me as particularly bad for Burner. Yeah…she is -6% down, but Reichert, as the incumbent, starts out with the advantage. The poll’s cross-tabs look reasonably positive for Burner. Among other things, of those who said they could change their mind, 50% were Reichert supporters and 39% were Burner supporters. Also, Reichert holds 35% of the pro-choice vote. It’s hard to imagine that the Burner campaign won’t make in-roads into that group.

This poll comes on the heels of massive mailings of campaign flyers franked informational pieces from the Reichert campaign congressional office. The Burner campaign, to my knowledge, has not made any media purchases.

Furthermore, Reichert has recently gotten a lot of well-deserved publicity for eco-friendly votes. I say “well deserved” because, clearly, Reichert’s handlers have developed a brilliant strategy that has rendered the local media stupifyingly blind to Reichert’s strategy of full participation in Republican obstructionism in Congress during procedural votes, only to switch his vote when the results are certain passage. Daniel Kirkdorffer has meticulously documented this rather cynical strategy. It is hard to say whether Reichert’s people will be able to maintain their spell over the media through November.

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

From the Bellingham Herald:

Less than a week after he swore off earmarks, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert visited the new 911 dispatch center for eastern King County, where he was publicly thanked by local officials for helping secure $1.7 million in earmarks for the center.

The Washington state Republican announced in March that he wouldn’t seek any earmarks this year, because the system was out of control and in need of serious overhaul. But he says that doesn’t mean he wasn’t going to take credit for the $27 million in earmarks he secured last year.

“You’re doggone right I was there,” said the two-term congressman, who faces what’s expected to be a tough re-election campaign. “I am not ashamed to take credit for something we worked hard on. Shoot, I’d be stupid not to.”

So let me get this right… Dave Reichert takes credit for swearing off earmarks, and securing them, at the same time… and nobody laughs in his face? No journalist asks him to explain why, if earmarks are so valuable and justifiable, he’d deny them to his district for the sake of a rhetorical gesture; or if earmarks are such a waste of taxpayer money as to warrant his pledge, why he’s not a tiny bit ashamed to take credit for them?

And Kate Riley accuses Darcy Burner of a “lack of authenticity” …? Dollars to donuts when Riley writes the second in her series of viciously dishonest Reichert endorsements, she’ll cite his bullshit earmark pledge in lauding him for his fiscal responsibility. But then, what do you expect from the amen editorialists at the Seattle Times?

Last week’s performance at the Washington State Republican Convention wasn’t the first time Rep. Dave Reichert laughed at the thought of Hillary Clinton plummeting to her death from an airplane; as the TNT’s Niki Sullivan reported back in March, he delivered the same “joke” before the Pierce County Republicans at their annual Lincoln Day Breakfast in Tacoma. But that wasn’t the congressman’s only questionable quip of the day:

At one point in the speech, he reminded people that Barack Obama may seem friendly and electable, but he’s a liberal, “and he will steal money out of your wallets and purses.”

The crowd was silent.

So… a famously former sheriff warns the crowd that a black man is going to steal their wallets? Yeah, I can imagine the stunned silence. (Though personally, I always cross the street whenever I see Barack Obama coming toward me on a sidewalk. You can never be too careful.)

(Sigh.) And this is best Washington’s 8th Congressional District has to offer?

UPDATE [Lee]: Matt Stoller posts about Reichert’s sexism.

In defending Dave Reichert’s abusive franking practices, the typical Republican defense is to roll their eyes, shrug their shoulders and say “everybody does it.” But not everybody does, and of those who do, few abuse the privilege to the extent of Reichert. And almost nobody uses taxpayer money to lie to taxpayers the way Reichert does in his franked mail cum campaign brochures.

Take for example Reichert’s recent taxpayer-funded campaign mailer constituent communication. In this one, Reichert touts his “bold” earmark reform… which basically consists of “not seeking congressional earmarks this year.”

“It is time to change the way things are done in Congress,” Reichert spends your money telling you, which is why he supports “a moratorium on earmarks, which have led to wasteful spending of your money.”

And yet, just two years ago, Reichert dropped a big chunk of taxpayer change on a piece of franked mail with the headline “Congressman Dave Reichert: Working for You,” and featuring a map bragging about all the pork he claimed to have have brought home to his district.

So one piece of franked mail touts his opposition to wasteful earmarks, while another brags about his profligate use of the tool. That’s the kind of rank hypocrisy Reichert shouldn’t be able to get away with, unless… you know… our local media lets him.