October 17, 2006
Seattle Times Q&A with Dave Reichert

Congressman Dave Reichert answered reader questions at the Seattle Times website yesterday. I won't say I agree with all of his positions and I think his response on Social Security warrants elaboration, but I agree with most of what he says. And overall, and in contrast with his opponent, he comes across as a responsible grown-up with sound judgment, who represents his district before his party, who isn't afraid to acknowledge that he doesn't have all the answers today and who solicits input from his constituents before making up his mind. This is someone I would be proud to vote for. I wish I could say as much about the people who supposedly represent me in Congress.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 17, 2006 12:06 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Anyone look at the questions in that Q&A compared to those posed of Darcy Burner? There's a stark difference. Perhaps the nutroots organized an outing for Dave's Q&A. He handled the shrill questions pretty well I thought.

Posted by: Palouse on October 17, 2006 12:54 PM
2. Yet he still refuses to answer questions about his previous statement, "So when the leadership comes to me and says Dave we need you take a vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority, I do it."

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 17, 2006 01:17 PM
3. Michael Caine - if this is a large criteria for how you judge a candidate, then tell us how Burner measures up on the identical question - I'm sure you've asked and received an answer.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 17, 2006 02:06 PM
4. WOW! There were only 4 other people besides me who e-mailed Dave asking him to support drilling in ANWR?

Posted by: RBW on October 17, 2006 02:11 PM
5. #3, if you are arguing that politics is well, political, then you're right. It is naive to think that politicians on both sides don't make votes because their party wants them to vote that way when it won't make a difference. I think Dave's vote on ANWR (in the House) was such a vote. There's a ton of votes that moc's know the outcome and will vote the other way just to say they voted for or against "X" (insert issue here).

Posted by: Palouse on October 17, 2006 02:12 PM
6. Michael @ 3, I understand you're a troll not actually interested in the answer, but here it is anyway.

Of course politicians consult with the political leadership on broader strategy. The Democrats do it too, and they should. That's how things get done in a collaborative body. This is what Darcy Burner doesn't understand, and her complete failure to build consensus and make progress on a relatively simple homeowner's association dispute demonstrates that lack of understanding dramatically.

The reason there are political parties in the first place is because people long ago realized there's great strength in banding together, and that even if you disagree with the party leadership on certain things, you get to see far more of your preferred policies implemented if you work together to keep them a potent political force.

Dave Reichert is not an experienced politician, and that can be a double edged sword. Politics matter. PR matters. And there's nothing wrong with party leadership recognizing that (a) they're better with a moderate Republican they agree with 65% of the time on than a liberal Democrat who will jeopardize national security and a strong economy with tax hikes and military retreats, and (b) assessing the political realities of that Republican's district to help advise him on how to keep his constituents happy. We say "politics" with a sneer, but "politics" is the art of keeping your constituents happy (and voting for you) by generally representing their interests and policy preferences in Congress. Political advisors' jobs are to help you understand the concerns of those constituents, as well as the broader strategy of the overall party, and make recommendations that try to balance those concerns.

Dave Reichert obviously disagrees with the general "party line" more often than most, but he also correctly recognizes that he can achieve far more of his policy goals if (a) HE stays in office, and (b) the party he agrees with 65% of the time instead of 20% of the time is in power, and is selecting Committee heads.

Do you honestly believe Darcy isn't being far, far, far more handled by Democratic party leadership? Is there anything about her that indicates any kind of independence to you? She won't even listen to her own brother - who was there - about what's going on in Iraq, because it doesn't comport with what her MoveOn.org puppet masters have decided are the talking points. And even if she wanted to, is blowing off the party leadership completely the best way to convince others of your points of view, and bring them around to it, or to accomplish what needs to be done when you only have one vote in 435?

You see, Michael, this is what adults do in the grown-up world. They weigh dozens of competing concerns and make the least imperfect choice under the circumstances. They discuss strategy with their group leadership. Sometimes they follow the leadership's advice. Sometimes they don't. At the end of the day, the voters get to decide if they're doing a good job, and if the other person would do a better or worse job. It's how serious leaders determine the will of and do the work of the people in a representative democracy. Darcy doesn't get that (even though she does it herself), which is one of the many, many, many reasons she not qualified to lead a homeowner's association meeting, much less serve in the US Congress.

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on October 17, 2006 02:21 PM
7. His words weren't, "I consider it." or "I take the advice to heart." They were "I do it." The national average for Republicans voting the Bush Agenda is 81%, Reichert's average is 86%. By that voting record he is less independent than 2/3 of the Republicans. Not a single one of the votes that he cast against Bush made a bit of differnce in the outcome. All of them were changed at the last minute according to whip counts, when it was assured that the measure would go the way the Leadership wanted it to. Doing it that way is not a matter of consience it is vote padding to have fodder in an election.

Working with the Leadership of the political party is one thing. Having them dictate your vote on every issue is quite another. He was one of only 5 Republicans that Bush personally campaigned for this year. Again, hardly a ringing endorsement that he is independent of the Bush Administration.

Until last week, he continued to parrot the Bush Administration's "Stay the Course" slogan. He voted to exonerate the Bush Administration's policy of torturing suspects. He voted to continue to allow the torturing of those suspects. He has refused to criticize the Republican Leadership for hiding Mark Foley's questionable relationship with Congressional Pages.

That would be nice if he or the Republican Leadership actually reached across the aisle. As it stands, he has not allowed a single Democrat bill to get out of his sub-committee. Infact, he has only had one bill, the one he authored to get out of that sub-committee. Again, he likes to say that he is bi-partisan, but his actions speak far more loudly.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 17, 2006 04:58 PM
8. Michael - Again I ask you Michael, aside from doing the bidding of the DNC, how would Burner be different?

What has she said or done that would convince you that she wouldn't do what the party told her to?

What has she said or done that would convince you that she would be more "bi-partisan" that Reichert?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 17, 2006 05:44 PM
9. Mr. Caine

You have been screaming this same topic from the Roof Tops for 4 days now.

OK, I believe you !!!!

So tell me WHY I should Vote FOR DARCY. PROVE to me that she will VOTE against the Democrats 90% of the time.

If you do PROVE IT, I might as well vote for Dave, cause he just might vote for drilling in ANWR.

Posted by: Chris on October 17, 2006 06:04 PM
10. Well aside from the fact that she pro-gun, pro-business and pr-military, none of which are anti-thetical to the Democrats, I guess you are right. Of course the difference is that the Republican Leadership has shown itself to be completely and utterly corrupt and that in itself is enough to vote every Republican out of office. And trust me, if the Democrats prove themselves to have even 1/2 the ethical lapses that the Republicans have, they will have me campaigning to have them thrown out. Also, if you voted to give the President the authority to suspend Habeous Corpus and to torture suspects, I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, I want you tried at the Hague!

Dave's voting record is particularly egregious if you actually follow them. He has switched at the last moment on every one that he is currently touting. If you actually take the time to listen to his speech at the Mainstream Republican Breakfast,
http://www.tvw.org/search/sitesearch.cfm?Keywords=Mainstream%20Republicans%20of%20Washington

His explanation for voting the way he did is clear. He was told to do so by the Republican Leadership to keep his seat so they can keep the majority. That is not working with them, that is being their servant. If you like the current leadership of the Republican party, by all means vote for Reichert. If you want to have them change their ways, they won't unless you show them that you will not support their lackey's.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 17, 2006 06:04 PM
11. Beeeep. Sorry, wrong answer Michael.

You've again given all sorts of reason against Reichert but have failed to explain where DARCY BURNER (remember her?) would be different.

Without answering the question with a Reichert or Bush or Republican bashing:

Would DARCY BURNER vote with the Democrat party less than 90% of the time (for those that buy the 90% line)?

Would DARCY BURNER avow to NOT do what the DNC told her to do, if she didn't like it?

Since it is a deal killer for you with Reichert, I'd just like to know what DARCY BURNER's answers were to the same question.

Give it one more try.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 17, 2006 06:13 PM
12. Thus far the only lackey at this site appears to be Mr. Caine. Such strident support for an individual so devoid of merit leads us to assume you are a "true-believer". Fair enough, if you happen to actually live in the 8th district, vote your preference. For those undecided who may be passing by on this blog , take a moment to go to Burners official Website and see who she links to as supporters. There it is, Horses Ass, how appropriate. Go ahead, it is as bad as one would assume. Foul mouthed, irrational partisan hacks in an echo chamber. Mr. Caine finds comfort in those pages and by default associates himself with their strident rhetoric, as does Darcy herself. Now since she has absolutely no public record to rely upon, we as the public must turn to who she aligns herself with and that would be the Horses Asses of the world. Is that really who the people of the 8th want to be influencing their representatives? A guy who is so insecure that he drops the F-bomb in almost every sentence? TIMES endorse Reichert? Darcy's favorite fundraiser Goldstein shouts F--- You. Sorry, you can hang with that group if you want to Mr. Caine, but I think the majority of us would prefer an adult to be our Congressional Representative in the 8th. Darcy just doesn't make the grade.

Posted by: Huh? on October 17, 2006 06:24 PM
13. She has stated she will vote her conscience. The fact that she is a Democrat means that she supports many of planks in the Democrat platform. So she will be voting for many of the Democratic bills. The agenda she has stated would be to enact the 9/11 Commission's Recommendations in the first 100 days.

Reichert has stated that he is independent too, only he has also stated that he votes exactly what the Republican Leadership tells him to on tape. His record also shows that he has no independence. His record shows that he is feels no urgency to implement the 9/11 Commission's Recommendations or any other agenda to keep America safe other than talk about it ad nauseum.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 17, 2006 07:19 PM
14. Uh right, SouthernRoots. You are accusing me of being a "true believer." Atleast she doesn't run away from her supporters. Reichert has Rove come to town to help him and he doesn't mention it on his website. He takes down pictures of him and Foley the day that Foley's scandal breaks. Tries to minimize that Tom Delay has given his campaign tens of thousands dollars. Had Bush campaign for him but claims to not care for his politics. Yeah, I'll take the supporters of Darcy over hypocrites like you.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 17, 2006 07:26 PM
15. Mr. Caine

She wouldn't have to support the 9/11 commissions recomendations, if CLINTON had taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance.

At least we call a spade a spade, unlike you who are soooooooooo hung up on a breakfast meeting that took place in May.

How many times has HA called for donations (tithing) from his followers? Her supporters hate Christians....Yes HA are christian haters.Goldy is a true and BLUE christian hater.

Darcy ALLOWS him to call other politicans PIGF$CKERS, and still represent her. These are the type of people Darcy stands for and is proud to represent, and even mention on her Web Page.

Are you a Proud Darcy supporter too, Mr. Caine?

Posted by: Chris on October 17, 2006 07:54 PM
16. Again you prove that you are the "true believer." When Clinton tried to go after Bin Laden, the Republican's in Congress accused him of sending the cruise missiles to distract from their rabid attacks. When the Cole was attacked, the FBI & CIA wouldn't verify that Bin Laden was behind the attack until after Bush took office. Clinton had plans drawn up to attack Bin Laden directly that Bush decided to ignore.

As far as HA and Goldy, they are separate entities. HA and Goldy support Darcy Burner but she has no input in what they are the posters write. I don't know who you are referencing that they called that to but I have seen similar crap on this sight as well. And no, I doubt they hate Christians, but I have no doubt that they hate the Pharisee that call themselves Christians and actually worship Mammon. Pharisee that call on their viewers to pray for the death of people. Pharisee who are quick to criticize moments of weakness in others, yet they are doing the same themselves.

I was a Republican, I left when they decided they were the party of God, because their God has no forgiveness. Their God has no mercy. Their God only loves money and sowing hatred. They may mouth that Jesus is their God, but the Jesus I know and cherish has mercy. The Jesus I know and love preaches forgiveness. The Jesus I know and worship teaches us to judge not, lest you be judged.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 17, 2006 08:32 PM
17. Mr. Caine

Glad to hear it!!! How about the Pig Intercourse.

What does darcy say about that.

If she doesn't toe the line, will she be called a similar name? Do you really think it is heathly to associate with folks like that in a campaign?

HA and Goldy is one of the SAME. Try telling Goldy he is seperate from his Blog, now that might get you BANNED. Don't dick around with his EGO, it is way too fragile.


BTW......In the 3 years I have read SP, I can tell you that if a person who spewed the hatred like those on HA, would be banned. So if you say you have seen it here, it aint here for long. But if Goldy allows it, he agrees with it. At least that is what any "uneducated" "first timer" over at HA would assume.

One more thing, too bad you confuse politics with faith.

Posted by: Chris on October 17, 2006 08:57 PM
18. Rereading the post, I can see where you thought I didn't know that HA is Goldy's website, and niether Goldy or HA have an affiliation with Darcy Burner other than that they support her. (hopefully that is clearer) Darcy Burner has no control of Goldy's action or the content of his website. On the other hand Goldy does not have any say in Darcy Burner's campaign. You are the only one that is saying there is.

Also, it is the Republicans that are confusing politics with faith. They are the party that is claiming to represent God and to be the only one that knows his plan. That is why I left the Republican party.

As far as blogs go, in the couple of weeks that I have been checking out the local political blogs, Hominid Views seems to be the best of the local bunch so far (Sound Politics may not be as vulgar as HA but its articles and posters are just as vindictive, deceitful and disrepectful.)

The article you are mentioning is Goldy's response to an outright fabrication of a story by Luke Esser. After he has a friend file a complaint that the Ethics Board ruled baseless, he tries to make political hay out of it. If Sound Politics had integrity they would be chastising Luke Esser rather than reporting it as if the complaint was ruled legit by the Ethics Board. Members of Sound Politics frequently post and swear on HA. So in the end, the only difference I see between Sound Politics and HA is one of vulgarity allowed on the board itself.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 17, 2006 09:39 PM
19. That and one (HA) supports Democrats in general but taking them to task for things they don't like and the other (SP) supports Republicans no matter how sleazy they are.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 17, 2006 09:42 PM
20. Michael, I didn't call you a true believer. I only asked what you knew about Darcy in the same areas that you were castigating Reichert. I asked at least three times - maybe four - and your response was constantly berating Reichert, Bush and Republicans. Very little was said in support of Darcy.

In your latest, you again castigate Reichert and give a little praise to Darcy, but very little substance.

You call me a hypocrite, but if you reread my posts, I don't defend Reichert at all. I only ask you how Darcy would be different.

A Republican candidate votes with his party the majority of the time.

A Republican candidate sometimes agrees to "take one" for the party and vote with them on some topic or other.

Are you seriously telling me that Democrats don't do the same? I'm asking you - if it is bad when Reichert does it, would also be bad if Darcy did the same things?

"She has stated she will vote her conscience. The fact that she is a Democrat means that she supports many of planks in the Democrat platform. So she will be voting for many of the Democratic bills."

Isn't this what Reichert does for the Republicans? When he doesn't vote with the Republicans, who gets the voting benefit? the Democrats probably.

You've posted nothing of substance about why to vote FOR Darcy as yet. You have posted as many smear items as you could about Reichert and it just isn't convincing.

After reading some of your later posts I have decided that any possibility you might have had of showing me the light just went out the window with your very unhinged tirades. If your tirades are an example of Darcy's supporters, I don't want anything of it.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 17, 2006 09:45 PM
21. "That and one (HA) supports Democrats in general but taking them to task for things they don't like and the other (SP) supports Republicans no matter how sleazy they are."

Bull crap.

Whatever dude. Apparently HA has done a complete 180 in the last few days then. You should go back there, as you would fit in better...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 17, 2006 10:01 PM
22. "Darcy doesn't have any control over Goldy's action or the content of his website." Well then Mr. Caine I would suggest she not link to it from her official campaign website. If she doesn't wish to be associated with the content, but takes their money what does that say about her character? Darcy has called her opponent "unprincipled" and "crass" Yet she freely connects herself F--- You Goldy and takes his money and appears regularly on his radio and podcasts. I believe given the evidence, most sane people would conclude that Darcy approves of Goldstiens actions and is supportive of his foul mouthed, caustic, childish rants. It's very sad.

Posted by: Huh? on October 17, 2006 11:03 PM
23. Sorry SoutherRoots, that post was in response to Huh?, I misread the attribution and thought it was your post.

First of all, Reichert is currently claiming to be independent. That was the reason why the Seattle Times listed that it endorsed him. However, he has stated in the past that he votes how the Republican Leadership tells him to.

Darcy will vote with the Democrat line a majority of the time, true. As I posted earlier, she agrees with them, as do most in her district according to surveys, on issues like health care, fully funding the VA, abortions being a matter of personal decision not state dictated, R&D money going to new methods of getting energy.

She will be far closer to Murtha than Kucinich when it comes to military. She is pro-gun. She is for fiscal responsibility in government.

I have answered your questions about 'taking a vote with the party.' It is part of the give and take. However, Reichert's votes are dictated by the party with nothing given in return. He has talked about bringing spending under control, but it has gone in debt more every year that Bush has been in office, and that increased while he was in office not decreased. He has talked about making us Safer, but in two years has blocked any attempt to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Will Darcy be better, she says so as does Reichert. Is she telling the truth, we only have her word. Reichert has a record that shows he has no intention of protecting us from the Terrorists any time soon.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 18, 2006 08:13 AM
24. Huh?,
I understand that you have a problem with the vulgarity, but it appears you don't have a problem supporting liars and spreading their lies for them. Rodney Tom is not being investigated for ethics violation, the complaint filed against him was ruled baseless. Yet where is your outrage for Luke Esser and this blog trying to say that he is?

I find the lack of integrity of this blog to be much more offensive and indecent than the vulgarity of HA. And I do occasionally post there and I will occasionally post here. Highlighting and calling to light the misinformation being posted.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 18, 2006 08:26 AM
25. "Michael Caine" -- your comment #25 is on the wrong post, but let's be factual. You write " Rodney Tom is not being investigated for ethics violation, the complaint filed against him was ruled baseless." I spoke to the Legislative Ethics Board yesterday and the official told me that the complaint was being investigated. Can you document that the complaint has already been dismissed?

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 18, 2006 08:35 AM
26. Sorry Mr. Caine, Darcy is joined at the hip with the foul mouthed, Philidelphia Punk and his Website. If you or any of her supporters cannot see the obvious issues that this presents for a candidate for Congress I cannot help you. If I were active in the Reichert Campaign I would simply refer people to her Website and the link to HA and ask the average voter in the 8th if they would let their own kids write the way Goldstein writes, or speak using F--- ever other sentence in public. If they would, I guess they have found their base. My guess is that most people would not find it acceptable behavior in an individual or a candidate for Congress. Darcy finds it acceptable because it is being fomented on her behalf and it is lining her pockets with campaign contributions. It speaks to her lack of character and the sad thing is she obviously doesn't see a problem with it. Just like you.

Posted by: Huh? on October 18, 2006 09:30 AM
27. Mr.Caine

Seems like you forgot to mention the WHOLE quote, and proper context to your FAMOUS Breakfast speech back in May that Reichart spoke at.

Appears that the Dems are being bad boys and TVW is telling them to pull the AD, because of Copyright infringement.

But the funniest part is, you have been screaming from the rooftops about this Quote, and you forgot to mention the REST of it. LOL

Carry On...........

Posted by: Chris on October 18, 2006 08:23 PM
28. I think it's time for michael to go back to making "B" movies (at least he was adequate at that)...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 18, 2006 09:30 PM
29. Actually the actor who changed his name to mine's best move was, oddly enough, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

That being said, Postman printed the context and in it he is tell the Mainstream Republican Breakfast to not worry about the votes they don't like, that there is a reason. His reason being the quote given.

Again, you really should do your own thinking rather than rely on the spin machine. They are making you sound like an idiot.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 19, 2006 08:31 AM
30. ...in it he is telling the Mainstream...

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 19, 2006 08:33 AM
31. BTW, have yall noticed yet that you are advertising Darcy's website on yours? Just curious since you seem to have a problem with the HA link on hers. :)

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 19, 2006 08:35 AM
32. "Again, you really should do your own thinking rather than rely on the spin machine. They are making you sound like an idiot."

Pot, meet kettle.

I'll match you spin for spin any day.

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 19, 2006 12:26 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?