October 19, 2006
Latest Democrat stunt ad criticizes Reichert for telling the truth
Sadly, Darcy Burner and the DCCC don't have much to offer other than misrepresentations. Their latest attack ad [video] quotes Reichert out-of-context, distorting his remarks:
So when the leadership comes to me and says 'Dave, we need you to take a vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority,' I do it
Now watch Reichert's entire speech
here, (42:00-56:00). The most relevant portion, transcribed below, starts at 50:40. Compare his speech to Republican activists with
this Burner speech to Democrat activists. Reichert seems mature and realistic, Burner merely hysterical. Reichert:
So when you talk about America, you talk about freedom, you talk about the dream, the dream has to include everybody. We know that in this room. And there's got to be compromise ... I've been to district meetings on this side, within my district, where people have said, 'Why in the world would I vote for you. It's just like voting for a Democrat, for cying out loud. I'm going to vote Libertarian.' And I said, 'You know what sir, that'd be a huge mistake and here's why.' Ii wanted to explain to this person how things work a ltitle bit back in Washington, D.C. and why certain votes have to be taken.
Sometimes the leadership comes to me and says, `Dave, we want you to vote a certain way.' Now, they know I can do that over here; that I have to do that over here. In other districts, that's not a problem, but here I have to be able to be very flexible in where I place my votes.
Because the big picture here is, keep this seat, keep the majority, keep the country moving forward with Republican ideals, especially on the budget, on protecting our troops, protecting this country. Right? Being responsible with taxpayer dollars. All of those things. That's the big picture. Not the vote I place on ANWR that you may not agree with, or the vote that I place on protecting salmon.
You have to be flexible. So when the leadership comes to me and says 'Dave, we need you to take a vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority,' I do it. There are some times when I say 'No, I won't.' There are some times they have things come to the floor like Schiavo. I was one of five Republicans who voted with Democrats on Schiavo because it was the right thing to do. Government should not have been involved in that decision. Period.
(Yes, the legislative process is a bunch of sausage-making. I find it refreshing that Reichert can be both realistic and honest enough to explain how it actually works. It's puzzling to me that the leftwingers
criticize Reichert for being honest about how both parties play the game. They seem to think it's a virtue to pretend that the law-making is sanitary when they know full well that it isn't). Reichert concludes:
It was also noted that I was the only person in Washington State identified as a centrist .. in National Journal magazine... and that's where I need to be in a 50-50 district. So you need to know that I will continue to evaluate each one of these issues on their facts. That's my job. I investigate.
Postman has
more.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 19, 2006
12:20 PM | Email This
1. I also love how the DCCC never got permission of TVW to use it's copywritten material.
2. Not voting your convictions in order to ensure re-election may be seen as virtuous in some circles, but in my book, that seems awfully self-serving.
3. Reichert didn't say anything that has not been happening in DC for decades. He was just honest and had the guts to say it, which will NEVER come out of the Democrats.
4. Huckleberry, if you're talking about core convictions, you're right. If you're talking about being right on every niggling point no matter who gets hurt in the process, you're not only wrong, you're wrongheaded. That's what leads to conservatives voting for a Democrat because they're incensed that a GOP candidate only agrees with their position 80% of the time.
5. Huckleberry, He didn't say he ever voted against his convictions. But politics is a process of continual trade-offs and compromises. Those who find virtue in never compromising aren't likely to be very successful at defending their own interests.
6. "independent" dave is out of the closet. he is a rubberstamp. the republican leadership wants to stay in power (who wouldn't?) and they know that dave will vote their way if they ask. and he tells the truth. the truth that villifies him as a puppet, not the people's representative. keeping the republican majority and keeping the country moving forward with republican ideals means a bigger deficit and more troops killed. it means an end to habeas corpus and the end to affordable higher education. it means scandels that turn off everybody from our political process that was once held up as the standard for freedom. speaking as a citizen, we have lost the path and the future looks bleak.
7. Cornelious: Take a deep breath, grow up a little, and read the Reichert quote in its entirety. Politics is absolutely a compromise most of the time, and if Reichert makes an effort to represent a constituency that is split, that is to his credit. If he takes a vote that helps to maintain his party's majority, that is also a virtue. I am having problems recalling any Democrat who would refuse to vote the party line on any major issue.
8. Corny must mean he likes how Democrats treated Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. Big Tent, open minds, tolerant of others opinions. Ha!!!!!!!!!!
9. If you want a good laugh listen to Burner on the Dave Ross show today. After her usual group of supporters got in, someone actually ask her about why her campaign worker was trying to block video taping at a public event. Her answer was that "The cameraman wasn't invited to the event." She added " Congressman Reichert was just trying to get tape on her so he could misrepresent her views." Geez Lady, pass the bong you are really paranoid. Not to mention a self-important, supersillious, unqualifed joke and a bad one at that.
10. Stefan, the important point is, we conservatives do not know what Reichert's true convictions are. The question is not whether we will vote for him so much as how tightly we must pinch our noses while doing so. And the bigger question is, where will the base be in 2008? There is more than one plantation in the world of American politics.
11. Consider the source. The secular progressive agenda does not honor truth - Darcy Burner is a classic secular progressive.
The problem in American politics is that we have very few leaders and mostly managers, who are paper leaders. Reichert has shown signs of being a leader, so it is clear that he is the correct candidate to support. However, the feminized SP Seatle electorate will not recognize this, without anything short of a heavy dose of shock therapy.
12. #10 - This country needs conservatives who are leaders and NOT managers. The current administration is loaded with managers, thus the quandry that presents itself for the 2006 election. Where is the leadership ? The managers are afraid to step out of line with the politically correct secular progressive MSM.
Do you think that the rest of the world sees this ? You bet they do.
13. I hope someone is listening. I sent a letter to the Times criticizing them for not publishing any letters in support of Reichert. They responded - no one has submitted any.
It is nice to sit on this blog and listen to each other. What we need to do is start convincing our neighbors.
14. Oh, right. He votes with his convictions "sometimes." That's comforting.
15. Nice spin ban. Yes he votes his convictions, unlike Dhimmicrats who do not because they have none...