This misleading New York Times article by Timothy Egan started me wondering whether the Democrats do have a chance to win Washington's 8th congressional district. The question has more than local importance because, if the Democrats are to regain control of the House of Representatives, they will have to win some seats in districts like the 8th. For those not familiar with this area, I will say that the 8th is a wealthy suburban and exurban district. It does not include Microsoft's Redmond headquarters, but it does include Microsoft's first location in Washington state, Bellevue. (Here's a map of the district if want to locate it more precisely.
Let's start with the basics. Washington state does not register voters by party, so that means starting with the results of recent elections. And when we do, we find a paradoxical result. The Republican congressional candidates have never lost this district; it passed from Rod Chandler to Jennifer Dunn to Dave Reichert without a slip. And the last time that a Republican presidential candidate won the district was 1988. (The Republican presidential percentages in the last five elections were: 56, 34, 41, 47, and 48.)
Which of the those two strings, the Republican victories in the House races, or the Republican defeats in the presidential races, is the best predictor of how the district will vote in 2006? Egan, a Democratic partisan, believes (or hopes) that it is the Republican defeats.
Democratic hopes of retaking the House, party strategists say, could hinge on places like Bellevue, a city of 107,000 just across Lake Washington from Seattle. Here, a fast-growing Asian population and an influx of empty-nesters and singles living in new residential complexes have helped to make this the kind of district that, while continuing to send a Republican to Congress, has turned increasingly Democratic.
What's wrong with that? Two things. First, Asians are not a particularly Democratic group; they gave Bush a big majority in 1992, Dole a plurality in 1996, and Gore a plurality in 2000, according to the exit polls. (I've misplaced the exit poll from 2004, but I think Bush did better among Asians that year than in 2000.)
Second, and far more important, Egan is ignoring most of the district. The US population is about 300 million and there are 435 seats in the House of Representatives. (436 if you count Washington DC's non-voting representative.) Do a quick division and you realize that the average House district has almost 700 thousand people. So Bellevue is about a sixth of the 8th district. (Though Bellevue may have more than a sixth of the voters, since the population of Bellevue is probably older than the population in the rest of the district.)
Let's assume that Egan is right when he argues that Bellevue is becoming more Democratic. We can not jump from that to a conclusion that the 8th district is, because trends in the rest of the district might favor the Republicans. And I think that they do. Most of the population growth in the district has been outside Bellevue, concentrated in exurbs, places like Covington and Puyallup, and along the I-90 corridor. And, as Egan recognizes, those exurbs have become Republican strongholds. And there is still a significant rural population in the district, a population that the King County executive, Democrat Ron Sims, has gone out of his way to antagonize. So what Republicans may have lost in Bellevue, they have, most likely, gained back in the parts of the district farther from Seattle.
The result of the last Congressional election in the district supports that conclusion. The Republican winner in 2004, Dave Reichert, defeated his Democratic opponent, Dave Ross, a popular local talk show host, by 5 points, even though President Bush lost ground, slightly, in the state and in the 8th district. Reichert's predecessor, Jennifer Dunn, had won the district by larger margins, but she had the great advantage of incumbency. This year, Reichert is the incumbent and has a weaker opponent than he did in 2004. And Reichert has separated himself in just the right ways from President Bush. (For example, he has voted to please environmentalists a number of times. Since they are one of the biggest religious groups in the district, that can't hurt Reichert.)
Putting all these factors together, I would expect Reichert to increase his margin to at least 8 points this time.
Will similar districts in other parts of the United States have similar results? You have to look at the districts one by one to make a judgment on each. In general, I expect Republicans running in districts won by Kerry to find ways to separate themselves from Bush. And I expect the continuing growth of the exurbs to continue to benefit Republicans. Tip O'Neill was wrong when he said that "All politics is local." But most politics is local, most of the time.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Those in this area may wonder whether Egan has a local connection. In fact, he does, as you can see here.
Over the years I have often been, let me say, entertained, by Egan's articles on places that I know personally. He once interviewed one of the Bullits in Leavenworth and presented this Seattle millionaire as an ordinary citizen of the resort town. When I read that, I first thought that he was conning the readers of the New York Times, but since then I have begun to wonder whether he actually thought that she was a typical citizen of Leavenworth. And I suppose that it is possible that he just didn't want to talk to typical citizens of Leavenworth.)
Correction: Bill Gates actually grew up in Seattle, though he did make Bellevue his first Washington state location. (I suppose that's where he got the "Bellevue Billy" nickname. I have corrected the text above.
Posted by Jim Miller at June 22, 2006 02:56 PM | Email ThisSecond, Dave' past as sheriff and his stands on law and order go a long way to assuring those in the district about security which is still a very hot botton issue with many many voters.
Finally this clown that is running against him is a real joke. She pads her resume, she has no positons and her supporters are driven by sheer hate not of Dave but of the Republican in general and Bush in particular.
When hate is your sole motivation the expressions of that hate distress a good number of people who are not hateful. The haters offend the deeply held beliefs of others and drive them to seek a consensus.
Posted by: Dennis on June 22, 2006 03:23 PMNot sure where you came up with that 8% number for Reichert over Burner. The polling released a couple weeks ago, though there was no head-to-head (probably not good news for the Burner camp), showed Reichert's reelect dangerously low. Do you have better numbers somewhere?
The fact that Reichert needed Bush to come out to fundraise tells me something is probably awry there...considering the Reichert campaign hasn't released any numbers to counter Burner's. I can't think of any other reason to send him other than that they're worried.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on June 22, 2006 03:46 PM2. The Bush event -held by a true Microsoft exec, btw - was a fundraiser for all WA GOP, not just Dave.
3. The little 'candidate that wants to' has found most of her support amongst the loony left of Seattle... too bad they can only shout for her and not actually vote for her.
4. Nutroots has endorsed the little 'candidate that wants to' ... historically proven to be the kiss of death.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 22, 2006 03:57 PM2. The Bush event -held by a true Microsoft exec, btw - was a fundraiser for all WA GOP, not just Dave."
see below. no head-to-head, but reelect looks dangerous for reichert, who got all the press for the event and the photo op with the president. did you attend, or do you know where most of what was raised will go to- were any of the other GOP candidates miffed they didn't get all that press?
thanks for any info
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/06/slog_exclusive_darcy.php
...
Bush’s job performance rating has plummeted to 26% (good or excellent) versus 73% (just fair or poor) with a majority (53%) rating his job performance as poor...
...
Reichert’s own job performance rating is just 39% ...
Reichert’s reelect numbers fell to 33%,...Independent voters disapprove even more of the job performances of Reichert, Bush, and the Republican-controlled Congress. Among independent voters, Reichert’s job rating is weak (37% good/excellent, 43% just fair/poor). ..
Ben Diamond - The map I am looking at is the one I linked to. Expand it and you will see that the divivsion between the 8th and 1st districts runs along 148th and 60th, missing Microsoft, but not by much. That's also what the authoritative Almanac of American Politics says. Both could be worng, of course.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 22, 2006 04:41 PMEven labels the buildings on campus- pretty cool!
That west campus road is outside the district, but Microsoft Road is inside (everything between Bel-Red and 140th).
What difference does that make? Microsoft is a business. It's not like people can put that down as their legal residence on their voter registration...
...Oh wait... I forgot what county this is...
Posted by: Mike H on June 22, 2006 05:21 PMAs far as Reichert-Burner, I seriously doubt that Darcy is going to gain any ground. Reichert hasn't really done any campaigning yet, and once he stacks his record against the big blank slate that is Burner it will be clear only the Netroots folks will be left on the outside in the 8th.
Posted by: Marc on June 22, 2006 08:17 PMThere are 1.074 Trillion reasons to vote against Mr. Reichert this November if you are a fiscal conservative.
Mr. Reichert trys to have it both ways on every issue. His website if full of how much bacon he brings home to the 8th, much of it total waste like $50 salmon for Mud Mountain and holds seminars for people trying to get government pork. Except he really isn't that good at it when you compare his pork percentage vs. other politicians. At the same time he claims he is a fiscal conservative.
Mr. Reichert claims he supports border control but then has the biggest opponent of border control to do fundraising for him.
Mr. Reichert claims he is pro-life but then votes to end Terri Schavio's life over the objections of her parents.
Mr. Reichert claims he is a law and order candidate, but let's off the USA biggest mass murderer after 20 frustrating years on the case. He let him off over the objection of many victim families, then writes a book and runs for congress.
Mr. Reichert votes like a Sierra Club environmentalist.
Mr. Reichert claims he cares about the private sector, but he has only ever worked on the public dole. Darcy on the other hand actually had a private sector job.
On the personal side Mr. Reichert comes across with a short temper and has a creepy side like trying to be prince charming with Nancy Pelosi's pink leather slingback shoe.
Mr. Reichert has the whiny liberal Republican attitude, like walking out on a debate during his last run ... sort of like a lot of lost conservatives on this board.
On the other hand much of what conservatives don't like about him is his silence on so many issues like Kelo, Winning the war on terrorism, Support for our POWs at Camp Pendleton.
He is considered a moderate because he pisses off liberals for his slavish support of G. Bush, and pisses off conservatives for voting like a liberal. Not a recipe for winning in the 8th. Darcy Burner is not Dave Ross (who is an outspoken liberal and with an annoying personality). Darcy has a great bio, good personality, but worn Democratic talking points.
Many Republicans are trying to use 2004 as a model of what is going to happen in 2006. Unfortunately, they haven't realized yet and won't until the day after the election that people like me are what they are counting on, LOL. Instead, they don't even attempt to really bring people like me back to the party, but drive me away with lame attempts by saying I'm a liberal, pull their best imitations of bevis and butthead, or call me every potty name in the book.
The evidence keeps piling up for a total rout in November including, wins for D's in the governors races late last year, Busby (D) running 9% ahead of 2004 in CA-50, Democratic fundraising equal to Republicans - normally Republicans run 2 to 2.5x ahead during non-presidential election years, Bush popularity stuck in the mid-30s. Why is this, because Reagan Republicans like me are pissed off and we are not sending money to the party, we are not supporting Bush and his liberal crap, we are not supporting the drunken sailor spending, we are not supporting the conviction of our troops, we are not supporting his BS prosecution of the war on terror and utter incompetence on the executive level (Katrina), and we dislike his stand on immigration, afterall he was elected to uphold the laws of the US not tell us the laws "ain't gonna work". Which leaves Government salaried Republicans only one sales pitch, which is "if you think the R's are bad, then you should be very afraid of the scary Democrats". However, that logic never works when you are getting fired. We don't care about the other party, we just want to fire these pathetic Republicans and get our party back to the basics.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 22, 2006 09:00 PMAre you Darcy Burner's Campaign manager in disguise???? Seriously!! You seem to have an EXCUSE for everything....
Posted by: Chris on June 22, 2006 09:05 PMI'm exactly who I say I am which is a Reagan Republican from the time I was 11 ... that is why it is so amusing to me to be called a liberal, a Patty Murry supporter, etc. I think these sniveling whiny lost Republicans here can't seem to call a spade a spade anymore. The Republican party is so far from the values Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher I hardly recognize it anymore. However, I've decided I'm going to do my small part to bring it back, starting with the 8th District of WA, this November.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 22, 2006 09:20 PMAnyone who pays attention knows that the military votes something like 70-75% for the GOP. I don't know how to come up with any numbers other than just a guess, but I'd say the Army moving the 2d Cav from Louisiana to Ft Lewis is probably worth at least 200 votes for Riechert.
Oh, and Darcy's showing up at a moonbat anti-Bush rally in Seattle won't help her with the military contingent, either. But while she can't get votes from Seattle, she can get $$$. Baghdad Jim's seat is safe, he won't need it.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on June 22, 2006 09:30 PMWhat's Reichert's excuse?
Posted by: kurisu on June 22, 2006 09:46 PMYou know, John-I'm-not-a-d'rat-but-clearly-a-liberal-extremist, that is complete and utter tripe. You make a pitiful attempt to make it sound like the sherrif himself had him cuffed in the back of a patrol car and decided to let him loose.
Newsflash John-I'm-not-a-d'rat-but-clearly-a-liberal-extremist: A sheriff has no control of the fate of a suspect after he apprehends that suspect... it's all about the laywers then. And the criminal justice system in America today is not about justice, it's not about fairness, it's all about EXPEDIENCY. So, John-I'm-not-a-d'rat-but-clearly-a-liberal-extremist, stop trotting out that stale, lame canard as a reason to prop up the little 'candidate that wants to'.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 22, 2006 10:29 PMI can't imagine why!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 22, 2006 10:53 PMI live in the 1st and my interest in the 8th is purely in the politics - why vote FOR Burner? All you and others have given are your reasons to NOT vote for Reichert (or DNC talking points for why to vote Democrat). You make it sound like a lump of coal would do better than Reichert. Why would Burner be better than a lump of coal?
If Reichert is not your representative, what is your vested interest in dumping him? If Reichert votes against your beliefs a good portion of the time, I'm sure Inslee is no better, probably even worse. Why not run your campaign against Inslee?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 22, 2006 11:03 PMIt's all a very lame, very pathetic cry for attention...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 22, 2006 11:14 PMWhy go after Mr. Reichert? Because the Republicans are in power and running up a massive debt 1.074 Trillion as of June 1st 2006. Dave is a Republican in the House where all spending bills are started. Mr. Reichert loves to spend tax payer dollars. Mr. Reichert is the closest Republican to the 1st District.
There are many other reasons to oppose Mr. Reichert, but deficit spending is probably my biggest beef with him and Republican party. The current crop of Republicans have elminated a core value of the conservative movement which is fiscal sanity.
Perhaps instead of sending self-congratulatory notes to each other, and telling each other how smart you are, and snickering at all the little goofy things you can point out in liberals. How about taking an honest look at the mountain of debt created in the past 6 years? How about taking a look at all the wasteful spending Mr. Reichert has both proposed and in some cases won? I really could careless if someone brings a dog to a council meeting or if some nut is holding a sign that says 9/11 is inside job, but I do care when 1.074 Trillion dollars are spent on the US credit card.
Now for a little homework: Actually engage a non-political person in a conversation about fiscal management from a Bush perspective if you think you still have credibility. Don't fight me, talk to someone at work, a moderate, someone not into politics. Watch them either look at you like you are insane or think you trying to get a laugh. Face it, Conservatives have ZERO credibility left when in comes to US money management. Don't argue with me, go find some neutral third party to engage and then post the reaction.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 23, 2006 12:28 AMTechnically you are right. Norm M was the official who let off Gary Ridgway. However, Mr. Reichert was very supportive of the action and gave many reasons why letting off Gary was the smart thing to do.
When you study the case, the seven times people idenitified Gary Ridgway, the fact that Gary continued to kill after he was a suspect, the fact he was arrested for solicting a prostitute even after he was identified by DNA and then released, leads me to believe that this was very poor investigative work. I think many years from now criminalogist will study this case from a what not to do perspective and an excellent example it is.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 23, 2006 12:36 AMWhen I look at the competition, though, my vote is certain.
Dave Ross came a LOT closer to having a chance at getting my vote. Because I used to listen to him back in 1994/1995/1996 and was encouraged (back then) by his "Send a $1 to a rep" campaign because he 1. Recognized that the money represented time (He had us write on the $1 how many minutes of work that meant to us) and 2. Was not party affiliated with who to send them to but, rather, by actions.
Unfortunately, I had also turned over to his show more recently nad been turned off because he's become more partisan over time (or I've become more conservative) so even that was not a huge chance.
Posted by: My Boaz's Ruth on June 23, 2006 05:32 AMThis is the wild card that worries me. If the 8th district has the type of turnout by conservatives and republicans that it did in the 2005 election that could turn it over to a dem.
The problem that dems have though is that they typically have trouble also "getting out the troops" in non-presidential elections.
Why else do you think that Sims and company is sooooo interested in all mail voting?
Posted by: jaybo on June 23, 2006 07:08 AMI believe McGavick will win.
And there is a sleeper of a race up north. Rick Larsen has never been overwhelmingly popular. Historically he has won races by 2% against weak opponents. Look for Doug Roulstone to upset the incumbent.
http://www.roulstone4congress.com/
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on June 23, 2006 07:41 AMWhy don't you use all your enegry on another group, because your words are having NO effect here. If you haven't noticed (have no idea why)but your NOT helping your cause.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 23, 2006 07:46 AMNot that I believe John is who he claims to be, but just because his conclusion to support Burner is flawed doesn't mean his reasoning is unsound.
Posted by: Dan on June 23, 2006 08:05 AMDon't believe me?
I don't want you to.
I want you to do the research yourself and then find out the truth.
Here is the ratings that the National Taxpayers Union did on Congress.
http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf
Reichert got a C MINUS!!!!
How can "Fiscal" Conservatives support that?
Rs need to get this message out.
Posted by: swatter on June 23, 2006 08:50 AMNow I know what it takes to be a major newpaper "Urinalist" in this town, the power to drown out ideas other than your own.
Posted by: Old News on June 23, 2006 09:07 AMswatter, I think most informed voters realize this, but you are right the R's need to do a better job of communicating it. The liberals are effectively using their "LOOK! See how the Republicans are spending!" strategy, and the Republicans are looking around for a way to defend it. I honestly don't know what their counter strategy to this is, or if they have one.
Posted by: Palouse on June 23, 2006 09:14 AMThere are 1.074 Trillion reasons to vote against Mr. Reichert this November if you are a fiscal conservative.
Mr. Reichert trys to have it both ways on every issue. His website if full of how much bacon he brings home to the 8th, much of it total waste like $50 salmon for Mud Mountain and holds seminars for people trying to get government pork. Except he really isn't that good at it when you compare his pork percentage vs. other politicians. At the same time he claims he is a fiscal conservative.
Pork? You mean like the $250,000 Patty Murray oinked for a "scuplture garden"? That kind of pork?
Mr. Reichert claims he supports border control but then has the biggest opponent of border control to do fundraising for him.
Well we certainly know the Democrats position on border control don't. When the illegal invaders parade down our street, Democrat from Ted Kennedy to Ron Simms walk hand in hand with them. Now please stop your girlie man whining.
Mr. Reichert claims he is pro-life but then votes to end Terri Schavio's life over the objections of her parents.
Really? I thought that was a decision that was made by a judge. Dude, seriously you are whacked out.
Mr. Reichert claims he is a law and order candidate, but let's off the USA biggest mass murderer after 20 frustrating years on the case. He let him off over the objection of many victim families, then writes a book and runs for congress.
Uh no sunshine. That would be the prosecutor Norm Maeling.
Mr. Reichert votes like a Sierra Club environmentalist.
Well, since you do as well - since YOU are voting Democrat, then you really are just whining like a little girlie man. Stop your whining girlie man.
Mr. Reichert claims he cares about the private sector, but he has only ever worked on the public dole. Darcy on the other hand actually had a private sector job.
Rep Reichaert actually has law enforcement experience, has worked with local, state and federal officials and has the experience to understand Washington's needs in the fight against terrorism. Darcy Burner only has experience maing excuses for the latest Windows Securities vulnerabilities.
On the personal side Mr. Reichert comes across with a short temper and has a creepy side like trying to be prince charming with Nancy Pelosi's pink leather slingback shoe.
Look dude. If you are a crossdresser with a fetish for Nancy Pelosi's pink shoes, I think you ought to go tell the folks at teh anal equine blog. We really aren't into that. I do have to say that I think that makes you a real 'Nancy boy' or 'Nancy's boy' however you choose.
Mr. Reichert has the whiny liberal Republican attitude, like walking out on a debate during his last run ... sort of like a lot of lost conservatives on this board.
No John. Rep Reichert is a man of integrity who takes a principled stand against mud slinging and dirty political hacks such as yourself. Here is what really happened:
"At the forum yesterday, the candidates were asked to respond to two questions -- one about transportation, the other about health care. When it was Reichert's turn to talk about transportation, he said: "I'm not going to talk about these issues because I'm not going to stay. I am disappointed by the way this campaign is going.
"I'm disappointed that there are a couple of people who are on this stage with me today that decided that it's more important to mislead and misinform the public, and as we refer to the dirty politics across the country and in our community and in our state, I, for one, am sick and tired of it."
On the other hand much of what conservatives don't like about him is his silence on so many issues like Kelo, Winning the war on terrorism, Support for our POWs at Camp Pendleton.
He has not been silent. Your ears have simply been closed. And looking on Darcy Burner's web site, I see no mention of this things at all. Why would people possibly want to trade an experienced law enforcement officer who has experience on fighting the war on terror with a faux Microsoft executive whose biggest accomplishment seems to be her high score at electronic solitaire and minesweeper? (HINT to JOHN: Mine Sweeper is just the name of the game. It has nothing to do with real mine sweeping)
He is considered a moderate because he pisses off liberals for his slavish support of G. Bush, and pisses off conservatives for voting like a liberal. Not a recipe for winning in the 8th. Darcy Burner is not Dave Ross (who is an outspoken liberal and with an annoying personality). Darcy has a great bio, good personality, but worn Democratic talking points.
What would YOU know about a winning recipe in the 8th? YOu live in a different district? Do you really think that people who live in the 8th give a tinkers damn what people in the 1st think?
Many Republicans are trying to use 2004 as a model of what is going to happen in 2006. Unfortunately, they haven't realized yet and won't until the day after the election that people like me are what they are counting on, LOL. Instead, they don't even attempt to really bring people like me back to the party, but drive me away with lame attempts by saying I'm a liberal, pull their best imitations of bevis and butthead, or call me every potty name in the book.
I think you are just seeking attention. Didn't you get enough cookies when you were a little boy JOHN? You have already told everyone here you are voting Democrat. Your vote is unimportant to 8th district voters because you don't even live there. And I certainly hope 2006 is not like 2004 since the very people you are voting for will once again try to steal votes. But that says more about you and your ethics, doesn't it JOHN?
The evidence keeps piling up for a total rout in November including, wins for D's in the governors races late last year, Busby (D) running 9% ahead of 2004 in CA-50, Democratic fundraising equal to Republicans - normally Republicans run 2 to 2.5x ahead during non-presidential election years, Bush popularity stuck in the mid-30s. Why is this, because Reagan Republicans like me are pissed off and we are not sending money to the party, we are not supporting Bush and his liberal crap, we are not supporting the drunken sailor spending, we are not supporting the conviction of our troops, we are not supporting his BS prosecution of the war on terror and utter incompetence on the executive level (Katrina), and we dislike his stand on immigration, afterall he was elected to uphold the laws of the US not tell us the laws "ain't gonna work". Which leaves Government salaried Republicans only one sales pitch, which is "if you think the R's are bad, then you should be very afraid of the scary Democrats". However, that logic never works when you are getting fired. We don't care about the other party, we just want to fire these pathetic Republicans and get our party back to the basics.
The evidence is quite the opposite. In a race where the imcumbent Republican sits in jail for a million dollar kickback scheme, it should have been a slam dunk for Democrats in the CA 50th no matter how much Republicans spent. But the truth of the matter is that no matter what poll numbers the liberal sycophants like JOHN like to cite, the truth remains that Democrats always poll lower by about 10-15 points as best, 20-30 at worst. When liberals thought they were going to win in that race, they hailed it as a "bell weather" of the national elections. Now they are spinning their spin so much, one could get vertigo just trying to untangled their tortured attempt at logic.
Folks, this is the same old "I used to be a Republican" propaganda that liberals love to use. It never convinces anyone, yet they always trot it out. Expect to see ads in newspapers with paid for by liberals like MoveOn.Org or some other liberal group with the twisted logic that somehow by voting for tax and spend, cut and run, hate america Democrats, they are being "true " conservatives.
I would think that smart liberals would at least send out someone who at least lives in the 8th district to pull this propaganda stunt, instead of a lightwieght underling liberal like JOHN, who doesn't even live in the district.
You forgot to mention Francine Busby's comments fduring Cal 50th race that "you dont need papers to vote" which seems to be the calling card of the democratic party.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 23, 2006 09:46 AMThe news today once again refutes his liberal propaganda:
"Seven Indicted for Alleged Terror Plot to Hit Sears Tower, Other Buildings"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200683,00.html
Oh, I forgot. Liberal JOHN will accuse Fox New of being a Bush propaganda outlet. So let's see what CNN says:
"U.S.: 'Homegrown terrorists' wanted to help al Qaeda
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says the seven men arrested in Miami were "homegrown terrorists" who sought to work with al Qaeda but ended up consorting with a law enforcement informant. The "jihad" was to be "as good or greater than 9/11," starting with destruction of Chicago's Sears Tower."
"as good or greater than 9/11,"
Darcy Burner's campaign representative John McDonald thinks that plots that are "as good or greater than 9/11," are just small fry types of things. What does the Burner campaign want, a WMD attack with millions dead?
Folks, the truth is so obvious for all but those who truly have inhaled, who drank the last drop of kool-aid. The Patriot Act and the Dept of Homeland Security have kept us safe. But if liberals like JOHN get their way, the Miami gang, Iyman Faris and the Lackawanna six, all AQ terrorists, will be able to carry out their plots unhindered by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
I don't know about Democrats, but I prefer thee people be caught before they can kill Americans. Democrats of course, are entitled to hold an opposing opinion.
Posted by: pbj on June 23, 2006 10:01 AMThe chattering masses of academia who lay claim to Joni Balter like electoral clairvoyance based on some conveniently simple macro trends in politics, always end up losing on the micro estimations needed to truly forecast with moderate reliability, the outcome of congressional races.
There are plenty of macro trends in the 8th District that, combined with significant national issues of concern, might give someone who's never run a congressional campaign the idea that the race is competititve.
But the fact is that before the demographics of suburban density can align with the stars of depressed presidential approval ratings - you have to have a quality candidate, a talented team and a formidable war chest. Requirements that leave the Burner campaing three strikes short.
Patty Murray was a mom in tennis shoes, but even she ran with the experience of a state legislative victory, some talented staff and tremendous dollars wrapped in media buzz courtesy of Emily's List. And while it may seem minor league to a hot shot 'executive' like Darcy, running for and winning a school board election, followed by a state senate seat is practical experience that matters.
Darcy Burner could probably beat W. if the state's electoral votes were up for grabs in November, but when it comes to Representing Congress, she's out of luck.
Posted by: Kevin on June 23, 2006 11:37 AMAs of June 1st 2006, 1.074 Trillion total accumulated deficit.
2 Trillion, 3 Trillion, 4 Trillion, 10 Trillion or is Bush always right no matter what? A Diatribe about how evil the Democrats are is a given, but at least try to answer the question somewhere in the criticism of me being a liberal, and ripping the Democrats.
How many illegal immigrants would need to come into the country before you would question Bush's policies?
How many countries would have to fall to Islamic Fundamentalism before you would question the war on terror.
How many US soldiers will need to be put in prision while Bush frees enemy combatants and offers amnesty to Iraq terrorists, before you would question him?
Here I will help out your answer "John you are lying bastard Patty Murry supporter living in the 1st district and the democrats suck and they are going blow the roof off the deficit and raise your taxes and they are campaigning against US Soldiers blah blah blah" ... got it. Now if you could answer the question.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 23, 2006 03:55 PM(For details, just ask PBJ - but considering the boorish a$$hole that you've been lately, I would ask nicely!)...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2006 09:55 PMI didn't think you would answer the questions or any of your pretend conservative friends. The inability to answer how far you would go in your support shows that you are first and foremost a Republican, everything else including any conservative values are a distant second.
To see how little value is placed on having a belief system and following it on fiscal and social values on this board is really amazing to me. Well good luck in November, because you guys are going to really need it.
Posted by: John McDonlad on June 23, 2006 10:07 PMI answered your questions with Darcys positions, if you don't like the answers talk to her not us.
Posted by: Smokie on June 23, 2006 11:28 PMhttp://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/23/D8IE9CO00.html
Posted by: John McDonald on June 24, 2006 08:04 PMhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1204-03.htm
Posted by: John McDonald on June 24, 2006 08:09 PMhttp://www.washtimes.com/national/20040121-120324-4002r.htm
One things this article does not point out well is Reagan fought the spending of the Democratic Congress, whereas Bush has often proposed the spending of the Republican Congress.
With over 1/2 of total GDP growth of the US Economy due directly to deficit spending, and all or more of the growth rate due to government spending when you include the monatary ripple effect. In other words, if deficit spending is removed then the US would never pulled out year 2000-1 recession and has had negative private sector growth ever since Bush has been in office! Still think Bush is a great president who handles the economy well.
As a conservative, I don't care about lower taxes, inflation, or the deficit ... what I care about is the size of the US government as determined by the amount it spends. Lower spending will result in lower taxes. Lower spending with result in lower inflation. Lower spending will increase the value of the dollar. Having lower taxes and increased spending is the worst of all situations THANK YOU BUSH for making the average unfunded family debt now over $500,000. Check out the concord coalition website for details.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 24, 2006 08:39 PMIf all we look at are talking points, then you are right. When I look at Bush's talking points he is a fiscal conservative, tough terrorist fighter, for limited government, pro-life, etc. However, the truth is very different from what they say on Television. I know how bad Bush is based on what he has done nor not done. It is amazing how you folks claim Darcy you know exactly how she will vote and her first votes won't be cast until next year. We thought we knew how Reichert would vote but all he had been doing is spending tax dollars and teaching others how to 'git some.
Anyways, most of this debate is meaningless as it will be a massive Democratic victory in the fall. All you folks can stick your heads in the sand and ignore or insult the base you are counting on.
I've noticed that now you are starting to blame the media for your troubles. LOL. When the Democrats started to lose power due to high gas prices, corruption, massive deficit spending ... they sounded just like you. Their last refuge was trying to scare the public about how Reagan was going to nuke the Soviet Union. It is interesting how all losers act the same and have the same strategy
Posted by: John McDonald on June 25, 2006 07:17 AMI've noticed that now you are starting to blame EVERYONE for your troubles. What a shiitehead! LOL.
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 25, 2006 07:59 AMWhen the private economy is not growing and is only propped up with massive government spending, their are three things a government is left with a. inflation (we are seeing this pick up) b. higher taxes c. cut spending -- my choice, but you Republicans who think all growth is good even government spending will be wondering where the awesome economy suddenly went if spending is cut. You have your choice, but those are the only three. The main problem with increasing government spending to fuel growth is the dollars the government spends creates negative wealth in the long-term as they often go to non-producers.
So in other words, Bush is going to tax you one way or the other. I predict an inflation tax, or some bi-partisen panel that raises the social security tax and medicare tax. The only reason you have not felt the deficit yet, is becasue Saudi Arabia, Japan, China, and others are letting GWB have a real cheap credit card -- FOR NOW. However, they have raised the interest rate on the credit card recently. Healthcare - well GWB did a nice job of adding massively to this effort with the Free Drugs for Seniors program ... so what are you complaining about - your man is the guy putting universal health in place, brick by brick.
As for Darcy, I don't know what she will do. She has a good Bio, her talking points are straight democratic party with very little innovation. I think her strategy is probably a good one, of just being nice and let the Republican hang themselves with their own incompetence.
Pretty funny how you know exactly what Darcy will do, but you can't even tell me what your guy is going to do, or in many cases not do (like cut spending).
Posted by: John McDonald on June 25, 2006 09:07 AMRepublicans only support the troops when it's RAH, RAH, RAH off to war. Now they are letting our guys rot in jail over things like dogs barking in the ear of a prisoner, civilians killed around a roadside bomb. This really ticks me off. I know blame the democrats -- just remember who has the pardon pen -- hint: name starts with a G. and he is the leader of your party.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 25, 2006 09:15 AMOh, I know - you're running out of liberal talking points and afraid you'll have to start all over again!
Poor stinky Liberal~John! He's stomped his feet and shrieked until blue and no one is buying his shiite!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 25, 2006 11:32 AMPresumably (in his "mind") our troops need forgiveness for following Bush's "illegal" orders?
John’s favorite buddy Ron and Murray cohort cynically bad-mouths his own father Ronald Reagan and Bush at every opportunity.
This is what liberals call . . . honesty.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 25, 2006 03:34 PMJohn like Patty Murray wants to call the troops in Iraq "our guys" so he can pretend that he gives a shit about the troops. At the same time he is friggin' stupid and treasonous enough to claim without any evidence whatsoever (aside from his own liberal hatred of Bush) that Bush wants our troops to be in prison. I spoke with Patty Murray once and even she was not as incredibly addle-brained as this.
John is eagerly at work proving his base insanity.
Hey thanks John, nice work . . . I starting to hate Bush now . . . (snerk)
I can't understand your last post, sorry. I think this was your first real attempt at a thought -- which should be encouraged (I think).
This probably explains why just you simply insult and most the insults are repeatitive to all posters . Ask PBJ, Janet, Cheryl, or Eric to write something for you, study it, maybe change the post a little - then post it. I'm happy to work with you on coming up with some good stuff as well. Working together we can clean up the potty talk, dress you nicely, make a good resume, get you a job, work toward your GED, and turn you into a fit conservative ready to take on the world - but you have to want it, we can't do it all.
Well congratulations on trying! It is not all about the success, it's the effort that counts.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 26, 2006 08:08 AMLiberal~John, if you'd just pull your head out of your a$$ for a moment you'd see how foolish you sound (but that wouldn't be any fun now, would it?!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 26, 2006 08:20 AMAmused and you are like peas in a pod, as well match as Bevis and Butthead. The perfect compliment to each other, I bet in the real world you guys are hilarious. Anyways, God Bless, I hope you take up the offer as a couple of new conservative converts is always a good thing. Everyone is valuable in some sense. However, for some finding it is a life long journey.
John understands that his liberal hatred of Bush includes a willingness to exploit our troops in time of war and claim without any evidence whatsoever that Bush wants our troops to be in prison. Facts don't matter -- any accusation will do.
John's also understands that his mock conservative shtick and corny treasonous comments are not working the way he wished. John’s petty gambit to divert attention away from his insane liberal bullshit are transparent.
John will say ANYTHING to damage GW Bush and he wants others to believe that he has the moral authority to do so because he poses himself as a real conservative estranged from "the true conservative party." As though John has ever exhibited in any of his comments any sense of what conservatism might comprise. No sensible person will be deceived into believing that John is anything but an insane liberal crack-pot who cannot reason or argue for his life’s sake.
Why does he continue? Because with every post, John loves feeding his spite by smearing Bush. The more he does so, the more marginalized has has become. John McDonald's coy little game only proves that he is comfortable to be a sleazy creeping moral degenerate so long as he feeeeeeels that it hurts conservatism.
What a turd.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 26, 2006 11:47 AMWhat you call unhappiness is in truth the enjoyment that I derive from witnessing true conservatives tear your pathetic lies to pieces. As long as you continue to choose Soundpolitics as your toilet, I'm going to keep up my vigil at countering you.
Call it what you want dipshiite...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 26, 2006 11:49 AMDid Eric or Janet write that for you? I can tell somebody else wrote it because you went 2 paragraphs without a potty word, then another two paragraphs. Nice touch on the turd thing, so at least I can tell you edited it.
George Bush can free our soldiers anytime he chooses.
On the positive side, did you notice that George Bush signed an executive order that prohibits the Federal Government from using the Kelo decision. Very late as usual, but a good start. Victory for the guys like me in the party! Apparently the only way to get Bush to do the right thing is bitch like hell (the way we got Alito) and dump the polls numbers. Next, the constitutional amendment proposal and then I'll stop complaining about this issue.
Over the past two weeks I can tell some political director in the White House figured out that it was the real conservatives that are pissed off and ready to throws the R boys out of office. Because George Bush is moving very quickly to the center from his post 2004 extremist leftist agenda.
I predict our boys in Camp Pendleton will be free by the November elections.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 26, 2006 08:14 PMIf Bush was dishonest as John insists he might free the troops immediately, but few humans are friggin'stupid enough to claim such a thing. That's no problem for John. The troops themselves admit that they understand why they are being held pending investigations, and they know they have little to worry about because GW Bush is the most consistently honest, honorable, and truthful President in American history. They will get a fair hearing as far as is humanly possible.
John is stupid enough to pretend that a President can do whatever he likes because (like his man Bill Clinton) he is President -- character doesn't matter.
At the same time John claims without any evidence whatsoever that Bush deliberately wants our troops to be in prison. Facts don't matter to punks like John, nor does the truth or logic, just attempting to castigate GW Bush. John's easy changes of lies lack any consistency because they are told purely for liberal effect.
John loves feeding his spite and the more he does so, the more marginalized he becomes. His coy little game only proves that he is comfortable to be a sleazy creeping moral degenerate so long as he feeeeeeels that it hurts conservatism.
What a turd.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 26, 2006 09:52 PMSo let's see 3 days in a row of the White House trying to figure out what will win my vote.
Three weeks ago: Gay marriage, which flopped because it was so transparently throw away politics.
Day One: flag burning
Day Two: Kelo
Day Three: Line Item veto
Do I smell panic at the White House?
At least someone in DC got the message ... however they really need to understand the only way I'm coming back is through ACTION, not throw away votes, not speeches, not proposals ... I want to see conservative legislation jammed through Congress and the Senate quickly.
An apology from the Republican party to their base about burning down the financial house of the US would be a nice start.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 27, 2006 11:06 AMApology sham-ology, the only act of contrition forthcoming should come from the liberal John McDonalds of America if they were sane
. . . not surprisingly . . . no one is holding their breath.
The only real lapses that exist in the besieged and tangled difficulty tenure of the Bush administration exist within the faithlessness and blockheadedness of liberal morons like John McDonald.
The real surprise here is that John has yet to accuse Bush of leaking the latest probe to the New York Times – maybe tomorrow.
Hey John . . . pull your head out of the bowl and that smell might dissipate some.
Literally -- what a turd.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 27, 2006 12:37 PMLiberal~John - I've said it before - I'll say it again; you're a fraud and a phony and no one cares if you live or die.
Should you get a brief moment of clarity and decide to off yourself, could you announce it first so we could watch?
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 27, 2006 04:18 PMI think wishing for, fantasizing over, and encouraging the death of posters is pretty far over the top and way outside of acceptable boundaries for a political web site. I will stop responding to all of your comments as your problems are deeper than any disagreement about politics. Seriously, seek some help and I don’t mean that in a bad or sarcastic way.
http://www.thera-tech.com/olam/index.php?tid=18
If you are younger than 18 or live alone, please show your parents your posts.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 28, 2006 06:52 AMIt is not uncommon that people who wish for the suicide of others and have a morbid desire to "watch" death; have or are considering suicide. His suicide comments were not in any way related to the on-going debate, sarcasm, or poking fun at each other, this is why I believe his post is symptomatic of a real problem and not just someone getting carried away. Please encourage Alphabet to consider a better life and stay away from political boards if it is too emotional from him.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 28, 2006 07:04 AMTruth hurts.
Looks like John is going to "stop responding to all of your comments!!!" Gee whiz, what'll you do now?
It is refreshing in a way though. John hasn't attacked Bush for invading Gaza . . . yet.
Did John ever respond to anyone's comments except to spew inane nonsense and Bush hate?
He just wants to distance himself from what he already knows and you make glaringly clear . . . that John is suicidally insane.
I read your suggestion as a kind way for John to end his pain. While I'm fine with the issue either way,
if John stays alive and suffers his continual insanity, we have a constant reminder of the deranged desperation
of the left and something to laugh at all rolled into one.
Nose another turd aside John and take a drink.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 28, 2006 10:08 AM