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 ThisOf 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 PMWorking 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 PMWhat 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 PMYou 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.
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 PMYou'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 PMReichert 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 PMShe 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 PMAs 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 PMGlad 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 PMAlso, 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 PMIn 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 PMBull 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 PMFirst 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 AMI 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 AMSeems 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 PMThat 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 AMPot, meet kettle.
I'll match you spin for spin any day.
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 19, 2006 12:26 PM