1. It is refreshing to read something in print as balanced as this piece from KCJ. They told it like it really is wihtout needlessly puffing up Reichert and needlessly beating up Burner. Just the facts.

Thankfully this will be the nail in her self made coffin.

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 25, 2006 10:44 AM

2. It occurs to me . . . isn't this one of the races that the Demorats were counting on to win back power? Wasn't Reichert considered "vulnerable" and "weak" with the 8th trending Democrat? Seems to me that it sure started out that way.

One down . . .

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 25, 2006 10:48 AM

3. The KCJ endorsed McGavick yesterday too.

Posted by: RBW on October 25, 2006 11:05 AM

4. Reichert was at first deemed vulnerable because he is so politically "moderate" (read liberal RINO).

Moderation is not a political ideology - it's a sure sign of wussiness. He's very lucky that the D's put up such a leftist waif against him.

What the heck is wrong with this guy - does he have any driving ideology?? (other than the go-along-get-along mush in an attempt to gain more money and power..)

Posted by: Jefferson Paine on October 25, 2006 11:08 AM

5. Just about the only folks who have not endorsed Reichert are the far left moonbats and their media apologists at the P-I, The Stranger, etc. Darcy Burner is a socialist. Her views are inline with those who believe that statism and redistribution are a benefit rather than a hinderance.

There has been some definite loss of major urban areas in this country to hedonistic blue socialists, but the 8th district is not ready to cede decency, security and individual freedom to the moonbats.

Darcy Burner is going to lose this election. And it's not going to be close.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 25, 2006 11:26 AM

6. Jefferson Paine #4:
Regardless of what Reichert believes he's better than Burner because he DOES have an R in his title. Depending on who is to be believed he's either moderate or votes "with Bush 90% of the time!" I'd like to see more "true" Republicans win but at this point I don't think where his ideology is matters. All that matters is that Rs win.

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 25, 2006 11:43 AM

7. Jefferson Paine #4:
Regardless of what Reichert believes he's better than Burner because he DOES have an R in his title. Depending on who is to be believed, he's either moderate or votes "with Bush 90% of the time(!)." I'd like to see more "true" Republicans win but at this point I don't think where his ideology is matters. You can work him over on issues once he gets re-elected. All that matters now, today, is that Rs win.

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 25, 2006 11:46 AM

8. Does anyone belive that the republican party deserves to control congress? Even if you are a Republican can you point to any real accomplishments? If you are an actual conservative is there anything conservative about preemptive invasions or nearly doubling the national debt? I don't understand undying loyalty to a party that has screwed up so badly.

Reichert seems like a nice enough guy but he is emblematic of the problems in the party. They found someone really well known without any real foundation for making policy decisions and then hand-pick his staff to guide his votes. When the polling seems too out of whack (e.g. ANWR and stem cells) they vote on both sides of the issue to appear "moderate".

This choice of loyalty over competence really hurts when you need to get something done as in Iraq or New Orleans. It is one thing to believe that government is incompetent to solve problems but this government seems to have gone a little too far to prove the point.

Sorry to vent but I wish you folks would be willing to question what is going on instead of reflexively supporting the supposedly conservative choice.

Posted by: Don23 on October 25, 2006 09:24 PM

9. Ok Don...here goes.

I support tax cuts. They have resulted in a robust economy for low unemployment, record home ownership, increased tax revenues, a declining budget deficit and a record stock market.

I support the energy policy. Contrary to the lie that it's a giveaway to big oil, it's a balanced piece of legislation the encourages conservation with practical incentives for our energy needs (e.g. tax incentives to build new refineries).

I support the efforts to increase border security (e.g. more money for border personnel, detainee beds, and the fence).

I support not allowing illegals to accrue social security benefits, which the Democrats blocked, else it would have passed.

I support efforts to reduce discretionary spending which has gotten out of control, something passed in the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005.

I support both Supreme Court confirmations, something that would not have happened with a Democratic Senate.

I support excluding gun manufacturers from lawsuits where their products were not defective, but used illegally. Democrats blocked this legislation.

I support the measures for fighting terrorism, including the military tribunals and not granting additional rights to non-citizen enemy combatants.

Is that enough?

Posted by: Palouse on October 26, 2006 08:49 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?