1. Elections should be about issues.

Otherwise how do you hold your Congressman accountable when he goes back to Washington DC to vote if they know that you are going to vote for him regardless of what he does and doesn't do?

Rep. Reichert voted against the Tancredo Amendment to H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce (SSJC), and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006. The Tancredo Amendment would have prohibited the use of SSJC funds to include in any bilateral or multilateral trade agreement any provisions that would increase immigration. This effectively would have prevented the U.S. Trade Representative from including immigration increases in Free Trade Agreements (as occured with the Sinagpore and Chile Free Trade Agreements, for instance). The Tancredo Amendment failed by a vote of 106 to 322.

Also Rep. Reichert voted against the King Amendment to H.R. 5441, the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill. The amendment would deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities. The King Amendment would be a huge incentive to rescind the policies that protect illegal aliens, criminal aliens, and, potentially, terrorists, by denying states and localities that enact them some Federal funding. Sanctuary policies bar public officials, including police officers, from asking an individual's immigration status and from reporting illegal aliens to federal authorities. In 1996, Congress passed a law that specifically prohibits state and local governments from enacting sanctuary policies. Despite that, cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston, still have sanctuary policies in place. Maine is the only state with a sanctuary policy. The amendment passed by a vote of 218 to 179.

Rep. Reichert voted against the Marshall Amendment to H.R. 5441, the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill. The Marshall Amendment would increase funding for USCIS' employment verification program by $20 million. This program , which is currently voluntary, allows employers to electronically check the eligibility of new employees to work in the United States. However, in December, 2005, the House passed H.R. 4437 which makes the program mandatory. The Marshall Amendment would fund this program. The Marshall Amendment passed by a vote of 358-63.

Rep. Reichert voted against an amendment (H. Admt. 138) to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006. The amendment would deny federal homeland security funding to states and local governments who refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities. The amendment, offered by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), would have created a huge incentive to rescind the policies that protect illegal aliens, criminal aliens, and, potentially, terrorists, by denying them some Federal funding. Sanctuary policies bar public officials, including police officers, from asking an individual's immigration status to determine eligibility for public services and from reporting illegal aliens to federal authorities. In 1996, Congress passed a law that specifically prohibits state and local governments from enacting sanctuary policies. Despite that, cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston, still have sanctuary policies in place. Maine is the only state with a sanctuary policy. The amendment failed by a vote of 165 to 285.

Rep. Reichert voted against the Obey amendment ( H. Amdt. 144) to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The Obey amendment provided $100 million to fund grants under the REAL ID Act to assist States in conforming with minimum drivers' license standards. The Obey amendment passed by a vote of 226-198.

Rep. Reichert voted against the Norwood Amendment, (H. Amdt. 163) to H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Norwood (R-GA), clarifies the existing authority of State and local law enforcement personnel to assist in the apprehension and detention of illegal aliens. This amendment would not only help deter future illegal immigration, but gradually begin to reduce the current 10-12 million illegal alien population in the United States. The amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 185.

Those are the facts. You could say that those votes don't matter, but for many of us we take such votes quite seriously.

Posted by: Jon on September 16, 2006 03:47 PM

2. And after all of that partisan BS jon cut and pasted, Riechert is still far and away a better representative for the people of the 8th district.

Burner is a partisan hack, a fiction created by Pelz and company.

Posted by: Huh? on September 16, 2006 04:23 PM

3. Well then the truth is that I have lived within a of mile of Darcy since she and her hubby moved to Ames lake and I have never heard of her. Burner has never been involved in any of the local issues of consequence and never spoken out at any of the meetings that I have attended. She has not been involved in any respect with the local schools, charities, local governance issues, land use or policy decisions. She is a joke, she is not qualified and I will actively work against her and her lying buddies at the King County Democratic Party. They have ruined our valley and they need to be removed.

Posted by: Huh? on September 16, 2006 06:57 PM

4. Darcy is not even worth consideration and you are correct I am justified. I don't play the RINO game, there are too many trolls out there pretending to be Conservative or Republican specifically tasked with trying to instigate division of any opposition to the far left party line. You might recognize them.

Posted by: Huh? on September 16, 2006 08:05 PM

5. Heh Nathan, I sent a contribution to Joe Lieberman, because I believe he is a good leader. I disagree with him on alot, but on the important things I agree with him. Your party obviously believed him a good enough leader to run him as a VP candidate. We don't chuck good leaders out of our party because they disagree with the Party line. We have people in our party that disagree with the current administration. Your party is not only chucking Lieberman, but also chucking Tim Sheldon in this state. Where is the party of inclusion, it looks to me to be the party of bail outs.

Posted by: GS on September 16, 2006 11:43 PM

6. "We aren't sitting behind your bus anymore."

BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!

Lighten up Francis....

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 17, 2006 06:22 AM

7. Let's see Nathan or is it Nathen apparently has at least two alias, three different E-mail addresses....and is still looking for a brain.

Darcy is the proverbial "Fence post with a hat on it" that the Democrats love to support. Her ONLY claim to fame is the "D" behind her name. She learned how to repeat talking points in college and the Pelz-McDermott crowd keep feeding them to her.

Posted by: Huh? on September 17, 2006 09:19 AM

8. Nathan:

If your insistence on ideological purity won out in the Republican party, we'd lose a lot of elections and have no power at all. Craswell and Carlson come to mind.

Posted by: Allen on September 17, 2006 10:44 AM

9. (Nuts, inadvertantly clicked the post button before I was through.)

Nathan:

If you want to make an argument that Dave Reichert is insufficiently conservative, then by all means recruit a candidate to run against him in the primary. But once a candidate wins the primary, your job as a Republican is to support the nominee. If you cannot in good conscience support your party's nominee, then it's best if you keep silent during the general election.

I disagree with some of Reichert's votes, but I'm very confident that I would disagree with a lot more of Darcy Burner's votes.

Posted by: Allen on September 17, 2006 10:51 AM

10. It matters because you liberals would expect the taxpayer to replace the window. Using a union window company.

Plus pay you 18 million for pain and suffering.

That's why it matters!

Posted by: GS on September 17, 2006 10:02 PM

11. Since the net effect of Nathan/Nathen/Steve/Beth/CnotR/John McDonold/Doug/Phil appeal is the same as the one desired by Goldy/Pelz/Burner/Cantwell/McDermott/Sims. I will use thier candidate suggestions as a reverse barometer.

Posted by: Huh? on September 18, 2006 06:53 AM

12. Huh? is right, "Nathan" is "Steve," our old friend banned from this site...though John McDonald, Doug, and Phil are real people, whatever you think of their politics. "Jon" is probably "Steve" too based on IP addresses, though I'll leave it be for now. Comments by "Nathan" were at #3, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Goodbye.

Posted by: Eric Earling on September 18, 2006 07:24 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?