The chance to topple Congressman McDermott in a November election. Many a Democrat - including some proud liberals - willing to run for that seat would make a better alternative than Baghdad Jim.
Ted Van Dyk, without saying so directly, recounts some reasons why McDermott is weakened heading into this fall. The lede is especially rich:
Previous donors to U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott's campaign or legal-defense funds have received an appeal for immediate money to help pay $1,111,388 in legal fees and interest that a federal judge has ordered the Seattle Democrat to pay Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. (Boehner says the money, when received, will be used to support Republican candidates.)
That last part really ought to inspire potential donors.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 07, 2008 08:21 PM | Email ThisHow sweet it is.
Posted by: Michele on April 7, 2008 08:33 PMIf you think this is a bad joke, wait until you see how many fake Republicans are running for Congress next time.
Posted by: Henry (Scoop) Jackson III on April 7, 2008 09:44 PMDo we really want the November ballot to be limited to two candidates, both favoring retreat from Iraq, both favoring higher taxes and bigger government, both favoring amnesty for illegal immigrants, both supporting government-run health care, both from the same party, both supporting Barack Obama for president? That does not represent an "alternative" to McDermott. If you want an "alternative" to McDermott, you need a candidate that disagrees with McDermott.
One party rule has harmed the citizens of Seattle and the 7th congressional district. We should make sure there is a Republican candidate on the ballot in November against McDermott. I fully expect to qualify in the August 19 "top two" primary and make it to the general election. But I also want to make the case explaining why it is important for conservatives and Republicans - not just in Seattle but throughout Washington State - to make sure there is a clear alternative in the general election.
The voters in Seattle and King County would be better served by a debate over the issues. Although the scenario of two Democrats facing off in November is hypothetical, and may not happen, we should not be under any illusion that this would somehow be a favorable outcome for the people. It would protect and strengthen the incumbent party, it would reinforce a lack of diversity in political debate, and it would augment the one-sided liberal domination of the Seattle area. Also, it would hurt the overall effort of statewide GOP campaigns.
Growing, building, and reinvigorating the Republican Party in the Seattle area is not a narrow partisan concern, but a direct and vital benefit to the citizens. Without a Republican alternative on the November ballot, there would be no debate over the need for a victory strategy against terrorism, there would be no debate over the need for free market solutions for health care and other key issues, there would be no debate over limiting government and slashing spending, there would be no debate over McDermott's extremist views on pro-life issues. Without such a debate, the voters would be deprived of a choice.
And without such a debate, an opportunity to persuade and convince and win people over to conservative values and Republican policies would be squandered. Squandering such an opportunity would negatively affect GOP turnout in Seattle and King County. While the 7th congressional district is heavily Democratic, even a small incremental increase in the GOP percentage can make a difference in other races. Let's keep in mind the close elections of 2000 (Gorton-Cantwell) and 2004 (Rossi-Gregoire).
There are some high stake races in Washington State this year - electing Rossi, re-electing McKenna, carrying the state for McCain - and all of them would be negatively affected if two liberal, pro-tax, antiwar, Democratic Party candidates were the only choices in the 7th congressional district in November. My campaign aims to create needed debate, discussion, and dialogue on key issues. On the merits, on the issues - this is a debate that we ultimately can win. It will be a process, of course, and it will hardly be accomplished in one or even two election cycles. But the debate is one we can ultimately win.
I'm running against McDermott, and it is my intention to campaign for conservative values, Republican policies, free market solutions, a victory strategy against Islamic fascism, lower taxes, and limited government - right in the heart of liberal Seattle and King County. My campaign aims to build the Republican Party in this area, to energize grassroots activists, to create needed debate on key issues, and to help change the political atmosphere in the Pacific Northwest.
Posted by: Steve Beren on April 7, 2008 10:13 PM"I am the leftiest lefty in Seattle.... [McDermott] is clearly popular with Seattleites. However, I cannot for the life of me see why. I think in many ways he has indeed become complacent in his safe seat and failed to capitalize on the benefits that a safe seat can provide. He could, for instance, have become a national spokesperson against the war in Iraq, and an outspoken one at that. Yet he isn't on any national radar; the only media coverage he gets is of his legal woes and of his perceived 'wackiness' by outsiders. Someone with greater political talent, or a better sense of how to use a safe seat, could easily overcome the 'wacky' stereotype to really advance a progressive agenda...."
Posted by: Steve Beren on April 7, 2008 11:15 PMHow about an article about Steve Berens on the main page? Because SP hasn't and he doesn't get any press and doesn't get quoted as opponents to a candidate normally do, I can only assume there is something wrong with him. I have withheld time committments/support until he gets more backing from the Rs.
And, have you noticed, Crosscut has become extremely liberal and their comments are almost exclusively Evergreen Stater alumni or leftists? I didn't see a counter comment on the Vandyk article, for example.
Posted by: swatter on April 8, 2008 07:13 AMI have to give Eric credit for his last sentence.
Seriously, Jim McDermott has almost one million dollars sitting in his campaign fund right now. Seems that John Boehner's could simply issue a writ of garnishment against that money, once there is an actual judgment entered by the federal judge to implement the order determining the legal fees.
I don't think Boehner could garnish McDermott's wages or sell his home though. McDermott was single when he dealt with that recorded telephone call, and has since been married for more than three years. Those two items are community property, and Boehner can't touch them, since the pre-marital debt was not made into a formal judgment until more than three years after he got married.
I do think that $1.1 million in legal fees is absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 8, 2008 07:48 AMMaybe Baghdad Jim can sell naming rights to his nickname to another middle east dictator. Damascus Jim just doesn't have the same ring, however.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 8, 2008 08:55 AMFYI, I run The Naked Loon, so yes, this was a shameless plug. But at least it's related to the post :^)
Because the last person to get more that 20% against McDermott was six years ago (23%). I think the GOP leadership recognizes that Steven Berens campaign is a waste of money and a futile fight against a extremely safe seat.
Looks like Steven picked up a whopping 15% of the vote last time he ran in 2006. I doubt he'll fare any better this time around.
LOL, What damage was that?
Exposing Gingrich as liar who would rather turn a judicial committee hearing into a partisan meltdown rather than admit he cheated on his taxes?
Except for it wasn't actually uncovering a lie anyway. They took like two sentences out of context and made it look like a lie. When you see the whole conversation in context, it's totally innocuous.
Posted by: Cliff on April 8, 2008 12:37 PMIn the grand scheme of the law this offense was a pretty minor violation compared to some horrendous things others have done.
Michelle, why spend lots of money on a candidate who is guaranteed to loose in November? Don't you feel that money could be better spent on other races where the candidate actually has a chance of winning (like Rossi).
The Rs, as far as I can tell, have been silent. Waste political capital by pumping him up publicly? What capital to waste, I retort.
Why not get him some free press what with all this legal problems he is having? Hmmmm, Michelle?
As for you, Cato, your guys sure made a big deal of nothing over this. Fortunately, you have the press on your side so they carried the torch for you and the others. If you are as intelligent as you think, have you listened to the totality of the illegal taping? I thought not.
Posted by: swatter on April 8, 2008 01:32 PMMcDermott and the Florida couple broke the law, and deserved what they got. McDermott brought the huge monetary fine on himself by refusing to acknowledge that he broke the law and continually appealling. The suckers who donated to his legal defense got what they deserved too.
Posted by: Palouse on April 8, 2008 01:33 PMNope, I've never even heard the tape...can't find a .mp3/wav/avi of it either.
Jim didn't make the tape, he just released it. The couple who did the taping it was fined, they paid a whopping $200 for their crime. I doubt anyone could pull this off today since cell/wireless phones are much more secure.
Geez, someone one party jumps all over the other something for comments taken out of context? That never happens in todays world, we're much more civilized than that. =P
The suckers who donated to his legal defense got what they deserved too.
Agreed, another easy reelection for Jim McDermott.
Yup, illegally.
The couple who did the taping it was fined, they paid a whopping $200 for their crime.
Actually, they paid $1,000 and plead guilty to illegal wiretapping.
Agreed, another easy reelection for Jim McDermott.
Since he would have been reelected easily anyway, the money they wasted on his defense fund really had nothing to do with his reelection. The only thing McDermott lost (besides money) was his seat on the ethics committee.
Posted by: Palouse on April 8, 2008 02:13 PMI doubt he'll be missing that one. =P
RE Serial ObfusCATOr, I'd bet your Mom and your teachers wanted to slap you and your sibling and classmates regularly beat you up... you were the one, who when called on the carpet for some trangression, ran your mouth tattling on everyone else in a feeble attempt to take the heat off you.
Dude, this isn't 3rd grade anymore... well at least not for most of us.
You do not and cannot win an arguemnet by changing the subject, no matter how often or valiently you try.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 8, 2008 06:08 PMOops I forgot, except Clinton and Obama spending 3 million a month fighting and tearing each other to pieces.
:)
Posted by: GS on April 8, 2008 07:14 PMAs Boehner has publicly complained about how little money his party has raised, he might indeed actually use it for the purpose he stated. Somehow, saving his own skin -- even if just to delay the inevitable -- may take precedence over the good of his party.
And, we can dispense with any sympathy for poor, wronged Rep. Boehner. You see, he has tried to obtain immunity for telecommunications companies. Those companies, at the request of high-ranking Republicans, illegally recorded the calls of their own customers. Said customers are now suing the companies. Rep. Boehner, after ten years of suing for violation of privacy, actually believes privacy should not exist for us mere voters. (Maybe he can sell your conversations to pay his legal bills?)
Paying money, even indirectly, to this liar, hypocrite, fraud and possible felon will not feel good, but keeping an honest man in Congress will be worth it.
Posted by: tensor on April 8, 2008 08:18 PMIf you left out that McDermott was "honest" you would have been better off.
Posted by: swatter on April 9, 2008 07:15 AMAs to him not getting much coverage on SP, well, which R candidates for Congress ARE? None that I've seen. They will get such coverage. Maybe now's a good time to start it, with most of the conventions over.
I wonder if the state convention will nominate state and Congressional (and Legislative?) candidates ... ?
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 07:44 AMAnd tensor also is giving blatantly incorrect information: there is no serious investigation against Boehner for Abramoff. To compare him to Ney is ridiculous: Ney did not go to jail for receiving legal political donations (which is all that Boehner did: took money from Abramoff associates, not even Abramoff himself), but for doing political favors in exchange for gifts (skyboxes, trips, and thousands in gambling chips).
Indeed, tensor left out the fact that Patty Murray got more money from Abramoff associates than Boehner ...
State seems to be in fairly good shape after 30 years (minus the failing economy). GDP is up from 30 years ago, we have a good share of Fortune 500 companies located here, no income tax, farming still dominates Eastern Washington.
Oh you mean this Rep. Boehner?
"He handed out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor in 1995 while lawmakers were weighing tobacco subsidies. In 2004, he allowed Sallie Mae to throw him a fundraiser while the student lending outfit was lobbying his committee. And he is a frequent flier on trips paid for by special interests."
No conflicts of interest there. =)