Today's Seattle Times says: "Reichert abusing free mail, critics say."
That might be more interesting except the primary complainant is Darcy Burner's campaign. You have to read over halfway through the article to find another critic. Since Democrats were complaining about the same issue in 2006 it's hard to see where the news in the news story is, other than giving placement to a boring partisan attack.
More importantly one can rest assured that no Democratic member of Congress in a competitive race takes advantage of their opportunity to send taxpayer funded mail - aka "franked mail" - to their constituents within the rules established by that body. Furthermore, you can rest assured Democrats have moved swiftly since gaining a majority in Congress to curtail and/or eliminate the privilege.
Or maybe not.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 02, 2008 07:42 AM | Email ThisThe entire story is quoting Sandeep Kaushik ( former Rons Sims Spokesman and wordsmith who proclaimed "Liberal values are drinking and fu#&*ng") about how Darcy hasn't got the intelligence or guts(my characterization) to pick a favorite Presidential Candidate. The best part is the last line of the story which quotes Kaushik as saying " I don't think it's a burning or Central issue for voters in the 8th district."
So the TIMES wrote an entire article with picture about a subject that isn't "a burning or central issue to the voters of the 8th", why didn't they simply mark it as an ad?
Posted by: Huh? on June 2, 2008 08:26 AMTypical politician if ya' ask me.
Show me a member of Congress, and I'll show ya' someone who sends out franked campaign mail.
The mailers are legal. A bipartisan committee reviews each flier members of Congress send out to make sure they follow a myriad of rules, including the size of the representative's photo and the number of times his or her name is mentioned.
There's no issue here other than demonstrating that the Seattle Times is most certainly Darcy Burner's personal mouthpiece.
BTW, the Times covered an event at the newly created Wild Sky Wilderness area (article). No mention of the bill's co-sponsor Reichert in that article, is there? If Reichert had voted against this bill, you know his name would have been in that article, along with an additional article with Darcy denouncing his vote and claiming that she frequently supports our wilderness areas by shopping at REI.
Posted by: Smoley on June 2, 2008 08:53 AMI guess 2 wrongs do make a right. Even if one of them hasn't necessarily been committed yet.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 2, 2008 09:31 AMAnd Witz, just because I think the mail should be banned doesn't mean that I begrudge an elected his/her/its right to do do. They are following the rules.
In this presidential cycle, the Ds will be all over McCain for taking lobbyists' money just like everyone else. I don't begrudge him from doing so because it was legal. McCain himself has said he is as guilty (if following the law makes one guilty) as the rest of the politicos.
Posted by: swatter on June 2, 2008 09:44 AMAgree 100%, the "we just want to let you know how hard we are working for you" fliers from the State Legislature are even more numerous and annoying than the ones from those who hold federal office. Just more chaff to gum up the postal system. I put them in recycling along with the eight or ten new credit card offers I get every week.
How about an initiative to end franking privileges at the state level??
Any takers?
Those things do cost taxpayers money ya know.
The point is not that it's good or bad, or even who does it. The point is that it's not news, and it's certainly not deserving of that headline. Reading that headline, you would think Reichert committed some egregious violation, when in fact, he's just doing what alot of other moc's from both parties do.
Posted by: Palouse on June 2, 2008 10:13 AMNo, we're saying that for Darcy Burner to come out and decry Dave Reichert's actions knowing full well she'd have done the same exact thing is just downright asinine. I don't imagine the Times will be doing a follow up story should Burner get her wish and supplant reichert as that would just be bad journalistic practice by a Democrat "reporter".
Posted by: Rick D. on June 2, 2008 10:18 AMHow about ALL levels?
How about limiting campaigns to 6 weeks before the election?
How about national primaries being grouped by time zone? All states in the same time zone on the same day, 2-4 weeks apart from the next time zone and no campaigning in any time zone UNTIL 2-4 before the election... AND no one in any zone reports results until ALL polls are closed in that zone?
How about WA moratorium on any election reporting until all results are in?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 2, 2008 10:36 AMNote to the Darc: when one has a less than perfect nose, holding a camera inches from it does little to enhance its appearance. Sorry kiddo.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 2, 2008 10:44 AMTypical politician if ya' ask me.
Show me a member of Congress, and I'll show ya' someone who sends out franked campaign mail.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 2, 2008 08:38 AM
Have to agree with Unkl "Half Wit" on this one. Didn't the GOP run on this very issue in 1994? Hypocrisy, thy name in Reichert!
Posted by: FreedomLover on June 2, 2008 12:43 PMI'm a bit more irked that Darcy won't take a stand on who she think's would be a better leader: Obama or Clinton. Wishy-washy is not cool.
We shall see. I'm still researching the two so I can take a stand.
ps: I must say, I'm digging Reichert's spokesman, Mike Shields. Quite the witty one.
Posted by: Miss Politician on June 2, 2008 01:20 PMEven if you are right, and I don't think you are, I don't recall Reichert running for anything in 1994. Matter of fact, I don't remember him running for Congress till a DECADE later.
Contrary to the beliefs in liberal fantasyland, where all Republicans are gun-toten', sister-marrying, Jeebus loving, fag hating neanderthals, not all Republicans agree on everything.
The 1994 Contract with America did NOT promise to pass all of the issues contained, nor did it even promise that everyone who signed the Contract even supported every idea in it. The contract promised ONLY to bring all of the issues up for a vote, and they kept their word, all of the above issues came up for a vote. Previous to the 1994 elections, the Democratic Majority had suppressed the ideas in the contract from even coming up for a vote, even though several had high public and bipartisan support.
Posted by: cliff on June 2, 2008 01:47 PMIn Heffter's defense, she's new to the beat, but this issue hasn't really gone away.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 2, 2008 08:15 PMAs for Sandeep being quoted in recent articles, I've noticed that as well. But so has Mike Shields been the only one speaking for Reichert. At this point that seems to be the way both campaigns are being run.
Frankly (no pun intended) I think that Burner's stance on the Democratic nominee makes sense. Most reasonable Democrats would vote for either candidate should either have won the nomination, and her stance is a reflection of that. As an Obama delegate, I would have personally liked to see her come out for Obama, but given how high passions have been from many Clinton supporters, staying low profile and not picking one over the other makes sense for her.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 2, 2008 09:25 PMFrankly, her stance is a waffle, declaring for the winner after the final buzzer goes off is hardly an example of decisive leadership or particularly insightful. It gives the impression she really doesn't know her own mind and is not willing to defend her reasoning to the public.
Posted by: Huh? on June 3, 2008 02:45 AMYou'll have to ask reporters why they aren't getting direct quotes from the candidates and how they feel about that.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 3, 2008 07:24 AMEven the PI's columnist Joel Connelly recognizes what is going on with the Dems snubbing Reichert's eco-attempts:
From the PI:
Introduced, but snubbed by Democratic colleagues who want to beat him in November, is GOP Rep. Dave Reichert's bill to add the Pratt River in eastern King County to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area.
In his column, Connelly still didn't mention that Reichert was a co-sponsor of the bill that created the Wild Sky Wilderness area though.
Posted by: Smoley on June 3, 2008 10:38 AMBTW, how do you know she wasn't at the event? Since she isn't an elected official, she wouldn't have been part of the ceremonies, which wouldn't have been the appropriate venue for campaigning, so if she attended it would have only have been as a citizen from the general area. I can't imagine anyone other than yourself thinking it was the appropriate venue for politicking.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 3, 2008 08:26 PM- "Why should I contact the campaign when we have you around?"
Because you're asking me questions the campaign has answers for and that I don't.
- "You are a volunteer for the campaign aren't you?"
I have volunteered for the campaign in the past, making calls or knocking on doors. So have many other people.
- "You are quoted over at Postmans blog on her behalf."
That's news to me. Please point out where Postman has quoted me speaking on Burner's behalf.
- "I know where Darcy lives, I know she is not involved in any of the communities that surround Ames Lake, Not Carnation as you have just confirmed and not Falls City."
I haven't confirmed anything, I've suggested that if she wasn't at the specific event you are speaking about she might have had a good reason. You also have not proven she wasn't at the event. You've also again chosen to ignore the nature of the event and why a candidate would even be in attendance.
- "It's nice to know that Darcy feels that all of the people who did show at the events were basically wasting thier time."
Huh? Now I think I'm starting to understand why you've got that name - so many people saying it to you when you make ridiculous statements like that.
- "Helping communities with a decade long struggle to develop infrastructure that will allow them to grow isn't a "sexy" issue, but it is part of what being an elected representative is all about."
By that logic Barack Obama and John McCain should be shadowing George Bush on all his appointments, which of course is nonsense. Dave Reichert might be so invisible that you've grown to see Burner as the incumbent and not Reichert, but for now Reichert is the incumbent and it is Reichert's record that this election will be a referendum on.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 4, 2008 07:27 PMI don't know if I will find time to volunteer for the campaign this year. I'll figure that out when the time comes. As for Postman, I'm going to have to presume you are referring to my comments on his blog. Do I support her campaign? Absolutely. But I speak for myself, just as other supporters do for any candidate they support.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 4, 2008 10:38 PMWhat I see is someone working very hard to get elected so as to be that public servant. I don't see how running for elected office is a demonstration of entitlement, but at this point you're obviously just pulling stuff out of your nether region, so this conversation is pointless.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 5, 2008 08:02 PMNobody, not even you can predict how Darcy will react under pressure. In her last race she melted down and blamed a bias against Democratic Women running against incumbant Republican Men in Congress for her loss. Then she went on Firedoglake and complained that the infamous phone calls to every home in the district were made on election eve, saying "Darcy is about to be arrested"...right 585,000 people in the 8th and nobody has an answering machine? Of course the Sheriffs office closed the roads to keep Darcy supporters from going to the polls on election night too.
Sorry Daniel, you can pick apart all the voting records you want for Postman (you should be getting paid for doing his research), Darcy has no record, she is running on ego and an entitlement complex, afterall she worked at Mircosoft!
Posted by: Huh? on June 5, 2008 08:22 PM