Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on And Now for the Real Bad News for Baghdad Jim...


Trouble? Well, considering he gets more than 80 percent in the General, I'm looking forward to see which other Dem will run in the Primary, quite frankly.

Because if no Dem does, than you know a Green or Libertarian will.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 4:17 PM

Does 872/State law govern how are Federal candidates are chosen, or does the initiative only apply to WA State offices?

Posted by just wondering | March 26, 2008 4:21 PM

Heh. Baghdad Jim has been a negative for the Ds for far too many years. I don't approve of the top-two primary, but if it clears out McDermott, well, maybe it has its advantages.

Posted by oh yeah! | March 26, 2008 4:22 PM

josh- he is as in much trouble as margarita prentice.

eric is aight, but hardly the big time progressive. not excactlly a big leader in oly. youre right the 37th would push him through the primary, but thats it.

if u want mcdermont out , it certainly has to be a bigger name. u always had it in for baghdad jim, even when he was the lone voice against bush's war, and you have been jonesing for a centrist to take his seat.. why dont u run?

personally, i think he is fine. just like there was a paul wellstone in the senate, you need a lefty like jim in there.

Posted by SeMe | March 26, 2008 4:24 PM

@2 - good point.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 4:27 PM

Sorry, the question now becomes - do we have:

A. two separate primary elections?
B. three separate primary elections? (Fed offices, State and lower offices, PCO (party) offices); or
C. revert back to the Open Primary we all love?

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 4:30 PM

Where's Ivan to call Josh a "dumbass" and assure us that "Jim McDermott will piss on all your graves"?

Oh, wait, that's what he said about Margarita "paydayloans" Prentice....

Posted by Willis | March 26, 2008 4:34 PM

KIRO is saying Jim's trip to Baghdad before the war was paid for by S. Hussein, thru some intermeidary and someone got 200 b arrels of oil or something.

No comment from Cong. Jim's office.

Of course we in Seattle won't care, but having a representative who exists mainly to fuel right wing fund raising drives seems a poor choice.

Any city wide or county wide official could take him out -- I'd suggest Sims or Nickels or perhaps Murray. Nickels could say he wants to be part of the Obama excitement and change and work on climate issues .... and transportation funding?

we know seattle mayors don't rise in state politics very far...

and he could run without giving up his seat.

or even steinbrueck though that nader thing still might hurt him.

Posted by unPC | March 26, 2008 4:44 PM

Ivan's busy getting ready for the parade, Willis.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 4:46 PM

Willis @ 7:

The message kind of writes itself, doesn't it?

See you at Jim's and Margarita's victory parties.

Posted by ivan | March 26, 2008 4:49 PM

And unPC, like I said, he represents us - not the non-Seattleites who whine about him.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 4:50 PM

Under your scenario McDermott might be in trouble if he was up against a "Johnson" or an "Allen" or ... I don't think Baghdad Jim need worry about a "Pettigrew".

Posted by umvue | March 26, 2008 4:51 PM



Posted by mackro mackro | March 26, 2008 5:14 PM

wait wait wait has Eric Pettigrew announced intentions to run?! That's fucking ridiculous! I like Rep. Pettigrew a lot but that is kinda shitty of him.

Posted by Fonky | March 26, 2008 5:21 PM

@13 - I think that would get 0.001 percent of the vote.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 5:24 PM

ECB think that being poor equates with being morally superior.

Posted by ecce homo | March 26, 2008 5:33 PM

There are not enough Rs in Seattle to make a difference, voting against McDermott in a more open primary.
@2: All elections are governed by state law, since States elect to federal offices in the manner determined by the state. The fact that our primaries have been reviewed by the federal courts does not limit the rulings to federal offices.

Posted by calvin | March 26, 2008 5:35 PM

Thanks for the info, calvin.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 5:37 PM

I'd happily vote to remove McDermott.

Posted by Tony | March 26, 2008 5:49 PM

What is Bill Sherman up to?
He is dreamy.

Posted by Sherman for Congress | March 26, 2008 5:57 PM

So you whine and bitch nonstop because Frank Chopp doesn't bring a Stranger-approved "progressive agenda" to the State House or use his political capital on those sort of causes, but McDermott does both at the Federal level and you're all over him 24/7 like white on rice?

Consistency isn't exactly a strong point for you guys, is it?

Posted by McD for life | March 26, 2008 6:02 PM

i have been so proud of mr. mcdermott on just about every issue and upon every occasion.

there is less appetite than ever for so-called "moderates" in the party, who are mostly DLC shills who favor a slightly more benevolent neoconservatist imperialism than our current pResident.

i think our caucus system spoke to how our district leans. our good friend jim has been on the right side of all of our most important issues, and there's no reason to change now.

Posted by jackieoh | March 26, 2008 6:15 PM

What part of 100% incumbency rate do you not understand?

Posted by Gitai | March 26, 2008 6:20 PM

Bullshit. Democrats don't have the guts to run against safe seat Dems except in exceptional circumstances. Everyone and their mother is waiting for Jim to die or retire. And when he does the chance that "liberal Seattle" will elect anyone close to progressive as Jim is near zero.

This would be an incredible boon to lefty third parties, or to a radical caucus in the Dems, to run against all the unaccountable incumbents in safe seat gerrymandered districts (the majority). But unfortunately what remains of the left is disdainful of or ambivalent toward serious electoral organizing beyond individual candidates.

As an aside, why the hell are you calling him "Baghdad Jim" and encouraging people like Eric Pettigrew to run against him? McDermott was RIGHT on the Iraq war. Unlike most Dems in this state.

Posted by Trevor | March 26, 2008 6:22 PM

Josh Feit is like the Matt Drudge of the Stranger. How does he still have a job writing?

Posted by Todd | March 26, 2008 7:03 PM

Those who would like to see Jim go would be better served by supporting a Republican. He is one of, if not the most liberal and unapologetically reasonable members of Congress that I'm happy to have serving me (I wish), in D.C. He will only get better with more time.

Posted by locals only | March 26, 2008 7:16 PM

McDermott wins by 80% margins because he runs against "Republicans" (i.e. mentally ill conservatives who don't get that Seattle will never vote for a Republican--note that McDermott is a psychologist [or psychiatrist?]) and/or "Greens" (i.e. mentally ill leftists). In a top-two primary, McDermott will end up running against a younger, more vibrant Democrat. Maybe even a woman, an LGBT person. Maybe someone of a nonwhite race. Just imagine! It's not like McDermott hasn't been a leader on a lot of things, he certainly has, but he hasn't been much of an advocate for Seattle on the national platform he is given--he's very comfortable in his "tenured" job, so I'm not sure as much work gets done as we deserve. I'm so beyond tired of him, I'm just pining for some fresh blood.

So I look forward to the possibility of choosing between two mentally healthy, relatively speaking, Democratic candidates for the district. And I look forward to a time when McDermott is no longer our representative...

Posted by Simac | March 26, 2008 7:16 PM

Being right - totally right - on the Iraq War - who cares about that old stuff.

He is old, uk, and not at all hipster.

Jim is so cool the uncool can't get their heads around it. Josh, quit drinking at the office.

He is the most educated of all, a psychiatrist, full fledged.

Just to keep some real time grip on things, the top two also means TWO campaigns for Dems. and that means a whole lot more money.

I think the better niche for this to be a tool for change is to get some mainstream Republicans to take out the kooks.

Goodbye Senators Stevens and Roach.

Poor Eric, tarred by the Stranger's hangover brush.

Posted by GUEST FAG | March 26, 2008 7:37 PM

Sooner or later we all have to go, and as much as I like Jim, I don't think he'll be around past the next couple of terms.

If we're looking for a Seventh District Representative to succeed Jim, who we think might be around for a good long time, who has the smarts, the policy mind, the political skills, the energy, and the sheer zest for the legislative process to deliver the kind of clout for Seattle that people think we need, I have at least one person in mind.

His name is Jamie Pedersen, and the more I watch him in action, the more I like him. He is way, way better than I thought he would be, and I sure liked his term in the Legislature.

Better prospects might emerge, but I think Jamie is a damn good one, and a real class act.

Posted by ivan | March 26, 2008 7:45 PM

unPC @ 8 -- Actually, Jim's office did comment ... and so did DOJ. No problem for McDermott.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | March 26, 2008 8:34 PM

Assuming McDermott gets the Democratic nomination (and he will), I don't think Pettigrew or any other prominent Democrat would run against him.

Posted by Brendan | March 26, 2008 9:57 PM

Uh... has anyone mentioned how much this changes the King County Exec race in '09?

Posted by Lionel Hutz | March 26, 2008 10:22 PM

The only two real challengers to McDermott's seat are retirement and death.

Posted by Gomez | March 26, 2008 10:32 PM

Ivan - welcome to the Jamie fan club. Many of us supported Jamie to the max, having spotted his talents early on.

But, in the dog pile that might happen when Mc Dermott says he is ready to retire, Ed Murray has the aces and about half the remaining deck.

Ed has the most solid name recognition, support from all progressive sectors and a very seasoned political career. And, I believe he would generate strong fund raising and a very strong and committed volunteer effort. Given that Ed endorsed Jamie, an important component in that hotly contested race, Jamie most likely would endorse Ed as well.

This is some of that fun political speculation but Ed Murray is perfectly positioned to go for it if he wishes - if and when the chance is there.

I really don't see a stronger contender in the 7th from existing political folks than state Senator Ed Murray. Congressman Murray, yes, it does have a nice ring.

Stay tuned. And in the mean, kick Mc Cain and his agenda into oblivion and re-elect Gregoire.

Posted by George Bakan | March 27, 2008 4:15 AM

Simac @ 27: Are you aware of the fact that the Democratic Party has a primary? It's not like anyone has been prohibited from running against McD from his own party.

And, in fact, McD is probably more popular, and has better name recognition, among general election voters than among the older and generally more conservative primary election voters. So why will the top 2 primary make any difference?

If anyone credible chooses to run against him, it will not be because of the top 2 primary but from a glut of out of work or bored politicians looking for career advancement, especially if the Dems lose the presidential election and people can't get jobs in federal government.

Posted by Trevor | March 27, 2008 11:55 AM

Josh saying McDermott's in trouble doesn't make it any more true than Bush/Cheney/McCain saying we're winning in Iraq.

Posted by Mr. X | March 27, 2008 5:16 PM

It is strange that Feit would choose to back Pettigrew, who took a walk on voting for the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (he works for Safeco), sided with the pharmaceutical industry over those fighting to keep doctors' prescribing practices confidential, and with his seatmate Sharon Santos is regarded as one of Seattle's two most corporatist legislative Democrats. His list of 2008 contributions is littered with pharma money, Glacier (mining Maury Island), and even Wal-Mart. Ugh.

Posted by Bob | March 27, 2008 9:13 PM

exportation of foreign corn, which in times of moderate plenty >black and white friendster layouts divides itself, is the fixed capital of which the characteristic is, that

Posted by Faith | March 30, 2008 1:45 AM

exportation of foreign corn, which in times of moderate plenty >black and white friendster layouts divides itself, is the fixed capital of which the characteristic is, that

Posted by Faith | March 30, 2008 1:45 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).