More pricks in the bubble of Democratic talking points that Dave Reichert is a right-wing zealot...or something like that.
1) Reichert is about to receive an award recognizing him as one of the three "Greenest Republicans" in Congress. From Connelly's coverage of the pending award:
The 8th District congressman recently scored 85 (out of 100) in the League of Conservation Voters' rating of key votes in the House of Representatives. Reichert supported the Wild Sky Wilderness, and has called for preservation of the wild Pratt River valley in eastern King County.It was an unusually high rating for a Republican lawmaker. Even the patrician "white shoe" Republican congressmen from Northeast states and New England are usually given scores in the 60's.
2) The Sierra Club is sitting out the race. That's a big boost for Reichert since environmental groups have in recent years been some of the more effective independent organizations in local politics to move independent voters in suburban races.
Additional reminder: don't forget the WEA also endorsed Reichert over Burner.
So, is Dave Reichert a buffer and more silver-haired clone of George W. Bush, or a good fit for his lean-Democrat district?
Posted by Eric Earling at October 03, 2008 08:22 PM | Email ThisReichert deserves many kudos for standing up to Bush and McCain today.
Posted by: Lysander on October 3, 2008 08:43 PMPersonally, I hope he looses.
Posted by: BananaLand on October 3, 2008 09:03 PMdarcy and her nutroots may may have a few screws loose, but Dave is safe.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 3, 2008 09:18 PMNo political skills to speak of.
Just the me old Darcy, chugging on, it is me, it is me. Knock knock.
She did go to campaign school and some guy named Ass likes her a lot.
Posted by: Hello, calling Earth on October 3, 2008 09:38 PMOr Doc Hastings. Pro-life and less inclined towards environmentalism, just like much of Central Washignton.
So they must bote be panderers just like Reichert in your book. Right? I mean, what could make either of them different?
Wait I know...in your mind they actually believe these things (unlike Reichert of course or it wouldn't be pandering). So the only difference is you must know these Congressmen and can make an informed judgment about their intent. That way we know who's pandering and who is merely representative of their district.
I am jealous that you are such a player.
Oh and you spell loses "loses".
And when you link to your blog you shoud make sure it contains posts less than a month old.
Posted by: BigDawg on October 3, 2008 09:48 PMLooses? Looses what? The Dogs of War? His pants?
I don't understand what it is you are wanting him to do.
This massive bailout was an absolute POS with it's piles of F'n Pork, and plenty plenty plenty for what other than the most corrupt organization in this country, ACORN. Any one at all see how much democraps piled into the ACORN POS.
Rep Charles Rangle should be forever be sent to the school of O'Reilly Hell!
Posted by: gs on October 3, 2008 11:59 PMThe call for more money has already started. Expect this bailout to be the first nail in the coffin holding our economy.
Reichert supports the super rich, and China. He also votes against his party "When they let him" as he put it. Gotta impress the low information right wing mouth breathers in his district. Nevermind the fact that he is almost the least effective member of congress.
The best thing America could do is take every single Republiconvict, and prosecute them for conspiracy, or aiding and abetting.
By the way. Almost all the pork you are crying about was added by the Senate to get REPUBLICONVICTS to support the bill. Corporate tax cuts. You know. The outsourcers.....
Republiconvicts are a disease.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positio on October 4, 2008 07:46 AMIn some ways I find Darcy Burner OK, but . . .
Perhaps its just me, but Burner just strikes me as being just bit too naive. Kind of like a Democrat version of Palin.
Posted by: deadwood on October 4, 2008 08:29 AMMy God! You are back! I really missed you...
Posted by: Chris on October 4, 2008 10:18 AMNo, actually factless, the BEST thing "America could do" is lock you up for life with a 400 pound cellmate named "Bubba." Maybe he would adjust your sick attitude.
Posted by: Hinton on October 4, 2008 10:54 AMYou're living in the wrong country if you long for me and others to pay for your socialism, Mike.
"Redistribution" is, in fact, not only a "dirty" word, it's filthy. It's the hallmark of the leftist... the neo-communist.
That you refuse to work isn't my problem. But do not expect me to pay for YOUR choice.
Posted by: Hinton on October 4, 2008 01:54 PMGee. Why am I not surprised?
It is so easy for those who do not have to want to take away from those of us who do the fruits of OUR labor.
I worked my ass off to get what I've put together. Clearly, that is a meaningless factoid to someone such as yourself.
You want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony? Then buy them Coke with YOUR money... with YOUR effort... with YOUR sweat, blood and tears.
But I will be DAMNED if you will take away from me for the effort.
Here's a clue I learned early on: The world doesn't owe you a damned thing. In 1991, I was living in my car. Because of my hard work and commitment, I have accumulated some level of financial success. But NO ONE GAVE ME A DAMNED THING.
What you wrongly refer to is much more than the redistribution you describe. And you are damned right about one thing: when people like you attempt to TAKE away what I've worked for, I will get far more than "vicious."
The idea that taxes are "only 9% in this state" is as moronic and ignorant as most everything you've posted... as if what we pay in this state is the entirety of it.
I paid a HELL of a lot of money so my kids could go to one of the best school systems in the state. *I* paid. I knew going in that it was gonna cost me. But there is a vast difference between getting something for what you pay, and the vision you present.
I would easily be considered "rich" in your world, but guess what?
I put myself thru school. I AM a high school drop out. But I'm also A COLLEGE GRADUATE, because unlike yourself, I refused to make excuses and I did what I had to do to achieve my goals.
The very concept of "redistribution" is anathema to this country. I give to charity because *I* want to give... not because someone like you can come along and think you can TAKE from me.
And if you think my response was "vicious," it's pretty clear you don't know what "vicious" is.
Posted by: Hinton on October 4, 2008 06:56 PMBut you have to give the devil his due when he is right, and he did vote right on the bailout didn't he.
But let's not give him too much credit. After all he is in a close race for re-election. Admittedly I haven't looked at every re-election race in the nation, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was in one of the most competitive Republican re-election races in history.
The House Leadership would know such things, and obviously if they could possibly help him out by "allowing him" to vote against the bail out knowing that they have enough votes to pass it without him, they certainly would have done it for him. They would have told him that since the bill had enough votes to pass without him, it would be okay with them for him to vote against the bill.
I am betting this is what happened and that is why I am not really giving him that much credit for this vote. I don't believe he was one of the people really fighting strong against the bailout. At least I didn't see him doing so. So this was just a calculated vote for him and the House Leadership knowing that the bailout was going to pass anyway.
Well since McCain voted for the bailout, is there any doubt that he will lose the election. He has deflated all the excitement conservatives had after he choose Sarah Palin. Most conservatives will stay home, and for me, I will do something I thought I never would.
Since McCain is running against Obama, as a conservative I have to vote for Obama.
Things will get worse with McCain.
Things will get much worse with Obama. And that is why I am voting for Obama. For things will only get worse with McCain but they need to get much worse for us to survive as a nation.
Of course a statement like that needs an explanation. And I will do so in the form of an analogy. Do you know how to cook a frog? Well, if you put it in a pot of boiling water the frog will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pot of water that is warm and turn up the heat gradually up to boiling the frog will just sit there not even realizing it is being boiled alive.
Obama is the one who puts the frog into the hot water and McCain is the one who turns up the heat gradually. With Obama his extremism will cause a backlash so great that America will start electing good leaders to oppose him. It happened in 1980 and it happened in 1994. And it will happen again.
But McCain he will really be the death of the Republican Party. As I said above things will get worse with McCain and therefore he and the Republican Party will get the blame. And then America will elect a Democrat in 2012 for President. And if recent history has shown us anything it has shown that the Democratic Candidate has been getting increasingly extreme. So I can't tell you who the Democrats will put up that year but I can tell you that person will be as extreme if not more extreme than Obama. So, how long are we putting off having an Obama-like President? Four Years?
And meanwhile McCain has shown that he wants to drive conservatives and conservatism away from the Republican Party, his choice of Palin notwithstanding. For those of us who believe that the only solution to our country's problems, it is unacceptable that neither of the two major parties represents conservative values.
So, I am left with the ultimate act of "tough love". Not to say there aren't hard times ahead for there is but that is true with McCain as well. But at least with Obama there is hope that things will get better after him. With McCain all hope is lost.
Posted by: Steve on October 5, 2008 12:55 PMAnd, since he is so much for the end of Partisanship, how many Democrats do you think he will have in his cabinet and his administration in general? No, I am not joking. Bush even had a Democrat in his cabinet. Norman Mineta, remember him, Secretary of Transportation. If Bush had one it is a safe bet that McCain will have many more.
It's notable that on the flipside, the NRA automatically endorses any incumbents of either party that meet with it's pro-gun standards. It endorsed the R candidate for Congress in SD in the Special Election in early 2004, but when the D won, and voted with them on two issues, they endorsed her.
They actually are about gun rights like they say they are, not partisanship. I guess that's more then we can say about the Sierra Club.
Posted by: Cliff on October 5, 2008 02:13 PMIt's notable that on the flipside, the NRA automatically endorses any incumbents of either party that meet with it's pro-gun standards. It endorsed the R candidate for Congress in SD in the Special Election in early 2004, but when the D won, and voted with them on two issues, they endorsed her.
They actually are about gun rights like they say they are, not partisanship. I guess that's more then we can say about the Sierra Club.
Posted by: Cliff on October 5, 2008 02:15 PM