I agree with the President on some things. I don't agree with the President on a lot of things." Congressman Dave Reichert - November 6, 2006 CNN interview on support of President Bush.
Just under the surface, conservatives have had their concerns with Congressman Reichert but it erupted into the open when Reichert was one of only eight Republican House members to vote for the flawed 1,300 page, written on the fly, Cap and Trade bill. One well-known conservative Seattle talk radio host called his vote "a deal breaker." The dreaded RINO (Republican In Name Only) label was applied but is that fair? To judge him on his support for President George W. Bush, not fair, but on his stands on issues is fair.
Comparing Reichert's ratings by eleven special interest groups to those of Steny Hoyer, House Democrat Majority Leader, on the Left and John Boehner, House Republican Minority Leader, on the Right, Reichert lands in the moderate center.
Source data web sites for each of these organizations are listed in pdf format at the below site:
Looking at his sponsorship of legislation, he is a moderate Republican. Most of his major campaign contributions come from traditional Republican sources.
Bottom line, Dave Reichert is a centrist Republican not likely to bolt the Party, particularly with Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker's chair. Equally unlikely would be a successful Primary challenge from conservatives. Parts of Reichert's 8th Congressional District include once solid Republican state legislative districts east of Lake Washington. Once because they are now firmly in the D camp meaning there is no strong conservative base upon which to build a campaign. Reagan Dunn, a popular King County Council member and son of the late Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, Dave Reichert's predecessor, might be able to parlay his council district base (largely outside the 8th Congressional District, however) and his famous name into a credible challenge but at the high risk of ultimately losing the seat to the Democrats. Additionally, with a new baby in the house, he may not relish a yearlong, no doubt, contentious campaign. Congressman Reichert plays well in his swing district. He has been elected three times by increasing margins. Next year should be a good year for Republicans. Bottom line, go with Dave in the 8th and concentrate on defeating Democrats like 3rd District Congressman Brian Baird.
Cross posted on clearfogblog
Posted by warrenpeterson at August 22, 2009 09:32 PM | Email ThisReichert is history! He will not be re-elected and he did it to himself by voting for the biggest bunko scheme ever concocted by big government and radical environmentalism: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE.
This issue, CLIMATE CHANGE is the defining issue for what's left of the Republican party.
Posted by: Jack LeCerveau on August 23, 2009 07:02 AM
Reichert is history! He will not be re-elected and he did it to himself by voting for the biggest bunko scheme ever concocted by big government and radical environmentalism: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE.
This issue, CLIMATE CHANGE is the defining issue for what's left of the Republican party.
Posted by: Jack LeCerveau on August 23, 2009 07:21 AM
Please name one "moderate Democrat" slammed by the GOP or Republicans as being too extremist. How about one that isn't being hounded by you leftist extremists as a traitorous blue dog?
On the ACU list you'll find several GOP members in the 40s and 50s and 60s. You'll find a handful of Slavers that rate in the 40s, and none higher.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 23, 2009 08:36 AMConservatives don't vote for people who support "cap and trade", and oppose drilling for our own oil in the same manner as Democrats. Ecomonic circumstances certainly contributed to McCain's defeat, but he surely demonstrated that a "moderate" Republican who entirely is in the tank with Al Gore and his "climate change" scam is not who the majority of Americans, who are conservatives, will elect. The Democrats know this and so they rub their hands in glee over guys like Reichert.
Would Darcy Burner have voted for "cap and trade"? Sure she would have. So what exactly did the Republicans get when they voted for Reichert?
A RINO.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 09:46 AMHow do you think a special interest group determines what score to give a representative? They already are bias to their own philosophy and values. How many members are in these special interest groups to actually be a viable political force for voters to heed to? Do you really believe that the entire membership of a special interest group participates in determining issues or is it just a select group of their self appointed leaders? In many ways this is what damages special interest groups identity and they become labelled by the press. Join a special interest group and you will find that they only take your time and money for what their top insiders will determine what is important to you. They will not allow you to participate or debate, except in rallies for their causes. They will determine who you will support and how you will think in many issues.
What is important to most voters is what their elected representative votes for or against and what bills they introduce, written, or co-sponsor. We will not agree on every issue nor how to provide for or against every issue. Trade offs and concessions are part of a political process to satisfy the majority that are involved. What must always be remembered is how will this affect their constituents and the taxpayers that will be forced to comply by legislation.
I have supported Representative Reichert in the past, even though he is not in my Congressional District. I even received a letter from Dino Rossi asking me to support his friend Dave Reichert the week before the Cap and Trade Bill vote. I am glad that I had the insight to wait and see for I would have supported someone that I can no longer support. This would have reflected my judgement and values politically in a future contest.
I am fed up with all of these RINOs in the RNC. I am a certified Life Member of the RNC of which their are only around 30,000 in the nation. I watch and listen for I believe it is wrong for me to throw my weight around just because I am a super delegate. I want the voters to be well informed and be involved for that is what true government is about in a democracy. I know that I am bias and I am a Constitutionalist, Christian Conservative, and a Republican by my own choice and values. I only see black and white and there are no gray areas in the US Constitution or bills involving our citizens.
In my book Senator Arlen Spector committed fraud to those Republicans that gave their time and money to get him elected. He should have step down or waited until the next election cycle to change parties. Senator John McCain and his daughter Meagan do not speak for me in all issues that matter to me; whereas, Congressman Ron Paul does and was vilified by the RNC and the press.
Posted by: John W. Aiken, Jr. on August 23, 2009 10:06 AMExcept when he DOES bolt the party.
Dave Reichert: WA's very own Arlen Specter... we're all seeing how well that turned out....
As I told him in my note after the cap and tax treason: 'You lost 4 votes in this household. We'd rather vote for an enemy we know is our enemy rather than someone who pretends to be on our side when it's expedient.'
We're over you Dave.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 23, 2009 10:13 AMThis is just nuts. The idea that somehow the demographics of Reichert's district has changed to the extent that he must pander to the left.
Understand that notion comes from Democratic strategists who want to push the Republican Party to the left. And into oblivion.
Watch the press, they nearly always identify any winning Republican as "moderate". The AP immediately did that with New Jersey's Chris Christie who is facing off against Corzine in the gubernatorial race. There wasn't anything "moderate" in Christie's bio that I could identify.
Don't fall for this Democrat strategy folks.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 10:46 AMHe was elected to represent the people in his district. It appears he is doing just that. Voting for cap and tax is going to hurt him, but overall he seems to be doing his job.
I have a real problem with representatives that tow the party line. Does not matter which party. People like our current Senators who represent the parties instead of the people are the ones who need to go. They think that all they have to do is bring the pork home to get elected to return to their home. Their D.C. home.
I received a Washington State Republican Party fund raising call the other night. I told them that I will never give them a penny again. That Reichert has lost my vote and that of my family unless he apologizes for his vote on Cap and Trade. I also told the caller that the state Republican party leadership supporting Reichert they won't get my support either.
Was Reichert paid off by Nancy Pelosi for his vote? Reichert met with Pelosi on June 24th right before he voted with the dems.
Posted by: Skeptic on August 23, 2009 12:11 PMRINOS that end up voting for liberal abominations such as "cap and trade" aren't really conservatives at all.
Again, do not be fooled by the liberal tactic of trying to convince the voting public that only "moderate" Republicans are electable. Gallup is showing that every state leans conservative. This is a conservative nation. The Democrats know it which is why they are playing this game.
There is nothing Democrats would love more than duping Republicans into fielding candidates such as McCain, Reichert, and Arlen Specter. Don't fall for it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 12:43 PMThere never has been much dispute that he isn't a conservative, but as Vince alludes to in #12 he also has problems acting like a Republican. A vote for Crap on Trade is a vote against all of his constituents - whether they are smart enough to realize it or not.
There are now several households that I know of that supported him up to now but who will not support him further.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 23, 2009 04:41 PMIf we had run ANYBODY but Dave Reichert in '06 or '08, we'd have Ditzy Darcy in Congress. We are likely to have a clone of her if we run anyone else in '10.
Anybody who doesn't realize that is a fool.
Posted by: Cliff on August 23, 2009 06:10 PM:sigh: yes, the eternal argument of the conservative moron.
Barry Goldwater ran on conservative principles and explained them to voters as well. He won 5 states. Speaking of Barry Goldwater, while Reagan was winning 44 states in '80, Goldwater just barely won re-election with around 50.1% in Arizona, running double digits lower then Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was a man with a particular set of gifts that ran at a particular time with particular issues when certain things in history came together and made his election and re-election possible.
Saying we should just do it again is like saying the reverse of "We can't go over the Rocky Mountains! Remember what happened to the Donner Party!"
Posted by: Cliff on August 23, 2009 06:22 PM
The 1964 Presidential campaign was held less than a year after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
Lyndon Johnson was held up as Kennedy's political heir. He wasn't really but it didn't matter at the time. Johnson was able to use the national horror over Kennedy's death to push through a massive social welfare program he called "The Great Society". The results of which destroyed the African American community. Don't think so? Look at historic African American murder rates after what Johnson and liberals put in place. After all those kids born of the single moms Johnson's welfare programs encourgaged started growing up it simply goes off the charts. You can look it up. It's enough to make you sick. It's why African American communities all over this country are killing fields every single weekend. And that is the truth.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 07:26 PMBill,
Are you completely incapable of understanding why this statement completely vindicates everything I said?
Because it does. And if you don't understand why, then I don't think you are capable of having an intelligent discussion about this issue.
Posted by: Cliff on August 23, 2009 07:38 PMI say this over and over. Leftists are a bunch of cowardly creeps. They are too chicken to post comments under their own names. What a bunch of cowards. Sheesh, I've posted under my own name in the papers for years, and even on HorsesAss. What a bunch of pantywaists. They are the same people that gave us the finger yesterday when we exercised our rights as citizens to disagree with Obama's healthcare plan.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 09:55 PM
Remember R. Reagan: Someone I agree with 70% of the time is not my enemy.
Posted by: Annl on August 23, 2009 10:27 PMYesterday when we were politely protesting Obama's healthcare initiative a liberal in the Northgate parking lot threatened to run over my wife and I so that we would "need healthcare". I'm a calm even tempered guy most of the time. But I don't take kindly to people who threaten to run over my wife. I won't say what I said to him. It wasn't exactly nice. I haven't been in a fight in probably 30 years but I was so mad I think I would have beaten the crap out of that jerk.
How unpleasant can these folks be? Jeez, so nasty that they talk about running over people? Nobody I know on the right would ever consider such a thing. What is wrong with them?
I'm not kidding. This guy actually threatened us with his car saying that if he ran us over we would be grateful for nationalized healthcare.
Does that tell you about how what kind of rotten people some liberals are?
I lost my cool. I admit it. Gosh, why would some creep who threatens to run my wife over with his car make me lose it? Silly me.
In any event the liberal coward scampered off after I said a few choice words I will not repeat here. I may be getting older but believe me, I would have beat that guy to within an inch of his life. What kind of human garbage threatens to run his political opponents over with his car? Liberals, that's who.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2009 11:57 PMNot only was his vote wrong, him taking it as a throw away means some democrat under Nancy's control got to vote no in order to win in 2010.
Posted by: Andy on August 24, 2009 07:09 AMBut reichert falls way short of 70% and instead of finding out what his constituents want, imputes and imposes his own views instead. His go along to get along flies in the face of his campaigns and reveals him as an accommodationist instead of a leader.
Yes, he was the logical choice compared to Marcy Barcy, but he went out of his way to offend his base and my family won't support him any longer.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 24, 2009 08:22 AMI note that liberals will vote for and endorse even the turncoat Spector and the "independent" Lieberman, heck even criminals! But if you are a conservative, you would rather vote for a liberal than one who agrees with you 70% of the time?
I don't know what Reichert was thinking when he voted Cap & Trade, but I sent him an email and his response was, he wished he could revisit his vote and if it came back for revision he would do so.
Give me Reichert over Darcy any day! Or McCain over Obama, or Rossi over anybody...but then maybe I am not conservative enough! Grin.
Posted by: Ken Howard on August 24, 2009 09:16 AMI think YOU miss the point YOU made. He won and was elected as a REPUBLICAN against a hard core far left leftist. Clearly the 'will' of his district IS NOT the far left horse dung he's voting for.
That's exactly the point. It is a Democrat strategy to plant the notion that only so-called "moderate" Republicans can win elections.
That has never been historically true. Democrats know this.
This is a conservative country. The polls show it.
Even in Seattle we overwhelmingly rejected one of the ultimate liberal measures, a tax on plastic and paper bags.
This idea that only "moderate" Republicans that vote for idiotic liberal measures are electable is nonsense. How are you liking President McCain?
Please, don't fall for this Democrat tactic.
"At least we have a Republican" is entirely meaningless if the guy supports the liberal agenda.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 24, 2009 10:38 AMI've posted here on and off for years. My name is Cliff. I've worked on numerous Republican campaigns in Washington State and am a Washington native. No, I don't put my real email address. I don't want a bunch of the lunatics around here from the so-called "Reagan Wing" to spam me with links from lewrockwell.com.
I say this over and over. Leftists are a bunch of cowardly creeps. They are too chicken to post comments under their own names.
Wrong, like you've been about everything else. Except about the conditions under which Goldwater ran, which made my point.
Anyhow, since you seem to either not want to understand, or don't care, I'll spell it out for you: WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT GOLDWATER IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT REAGAN. Goldwater was a particular man at a particular time with particular historical, cultural, political problems in play. He lost in '64 because these issues dominated and his message couldn't break through, and he was the wrong messenger. If Reagan had been in Goldwater's position in '64 and run, he would have gotten crushed too, although perhaps not as bad because he was for civil rights and was a lot better messenger.
Reagan was the right man at the right time with the right message. But under different circumstances, he wouldn't have won. And even if he had, he wouldn't have been able to effectuate change in the same way.
That's why randomly saying what you said, "Reagan ran on conservative principles and won, we should just do that again," is meaningless. The circumstances aren't the same.
Here's an analogy of what you are doing.
Me: "We need to get to New York."
Bill: "Oh, I went to New York once. We went due north for 10hrs. We should head North for 10hrs again."
Me: "But you were in North Carolina at the time. We are in Seattle now. We'll end up somewhere in Canada or Alaska. Once I went north for 10hrs starting in Mexico. I wound up in Los Angeles."
Bill: "Well of course, you started out in Mexico."
Me: "Well yes, of course, that's what I'm saying. We are at a different place now. We should look at where we are and adjust accordingly."
Bill: "Balderdash. I went north for 10hrs. It worked before. Let's do it again and we'll wind up in New York."
Me: "I give up."
"
The will of his district was not to have an incompetent ditz in Congress.
His district voted 58% for Obama.
And Reichert has voted with Republicans on the stimulus and will almost certainly vote against any of Obama's health care proposals. He's with us far more then he's against us and if you are too dumb to see that, you are too dumb to understand politics.
Posted by: Cliff on August 24, 2009 11:00 AMHow'd that whole McCain thing work out for you?
Sorry dude, I understand well my beliefs in CONSERVATISM.
"Moderates", "squishy in the middles" (like your Mccain and Reichert) advertise themselves as CONSERVATIVES under the name of Republican.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 24, 2009 11:14 AMHe was poised to win and was leading in the polls until the collapse of the financial market under the worst circumstances for a Republican Presidential Candidate AT LEAST since '76, if not '32. God would have lost as a Republican in '08 after the collapse of the financial markets.
Your arguing against a straw man anyway. I never argued for "moderates" nor "conservatives." I argued that you need to assess the circumstances and act accordingly, not do the same thing in every circumstance.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why the district wanted a conservative Republican and gave Obama 58% of the vote. No, saying "The true believers stayed home," is not a real reason. Even if it were true, and data shows that it's not, it wouldn't have made up the difference.
Posted by: Cliff on August 24, 2009 11:37 AMYou won't of course because you are a leftist faker.
I don't say this kind of thing lightly. You are like so many other leftists. A coward, and a liar.
Doesn't being that kind of individual keep you up at night Cliff? It certainly ought to.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 24, 2009 11:39 AMBambi is a liar. He didn't run as the hard core lefty that he's proven and proving himself to be.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 24, 2009 12:07 PMWhat in God's name would that prove?
You're a fucking idiot. I've voted for exactly one Democrat in my life: Brian Sonntag over Will Baker. You can attack me all you want but it still won't change the fact that you haven't even attempted to refute the substantive point I've made.
Posted by: Cliff on August 24, 2009 03:31 PMSo what? He certainly didn't run as a conservative.
You cannot credibly claim that they wanted a hard-core right winger just because Obama ran as a moderate left-winger.
Posted by: Cliff on August 24, 2009 03:34 PMIt is worth waiting for the RIGHT REPUBLICAN.
If the Republicans give me another McCain in 2012 like they did in 2008, I will stay home just like I did in 2012.
But I will not be staying home in 2010. I will vote for anyone BUT Reichert. It is more important that Reichert LOSES that seat than for the Republicans to retain it.
Posted by: James on August 24, 2009 03:46 PMNice dodge.
The genesis of this conversation was the assertions that Reichert "was elected to represent the people in his district" and then an attempt to prove the district was not conservative by virtue of the fact that it voted 58% for bambi.
Your dodge is that bambi "didn't run as a conservative", however that does not refute the fact that neither did he run as the far lefty that darcy burner is and that he is now proving himself to be. He fooled 58% of the electorate in this district by pretending to be moderate in the same way Reichert fooled us into believing he agreed with Conservative principles by virtue of calling himself a Republican.
And for the record, no one claimed we expected to get a "hard-core right winger" in Dave, but neither did we expect him to betray the principles on which we gave him his seat.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 24, 2009 07:50 PMHowever
Reagan didn't say that somebody who votes in agreement with me 70% of the time deserves my support and my vote. Not all votes weight the same in representing agreement.
I doubt Reagan would have risen in support of a soldier who showed up for duty 70% of time. He might not be the enemy, but he needs to be disciplined. I doubt Reagan would have sought the services of a surgeon who lost 30% of his patients in a routine operation. I doubt Reagan would have respected a merchant who only cheated 30% of his customers. Sucessfully landed the plane 70% of the time? Only slept through 30% of the incoming 911 calls? Paid 70% of his tax bill?
All of these problems might be confined to 30% statistically but point to a much larger problem. 70% is not a magic number for consensus that can be applied to all situations equally.
Reagan was talking as a politician building alliances with other politicians where 70% agreement on issues could represent an opportunity to foreward important agendas. The decision made by the individual voter in choosing whom to support and whom to oppose in a single election is a little less varied and often should not be measured by the same yardstick.
In my view the vote on cap & trade indicates a much wider gulf than 70% between Reichert's principles and ability to make discerning decisions and the standards I am willing to settle for.
Throwing the bums out when they show such poor judgement may be a blunt instrument that sometimes makes things worse before they get better, but it is a critical mechanism for applying pressure to the representatives in a democratic republic and I intend to use it. Without applying that pressure, I don't know a way to make things better. Ever.
And it seems like the Republican party has gone further to the Left since then.
The Republican Party is no long a party any true conservative can support.
Posted by: Cathy on August 24, 2009 09:49 PMHorseshit. Ford winning would have meant that the Soviets wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan, the Islamic Revolution in Iran wouldn't have happened, and 9/11 and the Iranian Nuclear issue wouldn't exist.
Reagan could easily still have won in '80 even if Ford had won.
And McCain and Reichert are both easily more conservative then Ford was on virtually every issue.
Posted by: Cliff on August 25, 2009 07:20 AMThis is quite possibly the most idiotic doublespeak I've ever heard. Are you seriously suggesting that people automatically assume you are a hardcore conservative if you have an R by your name, but that you can be a moderate or hard left if you have a D by your name?
Please, don't ask that I take you seriously. I just can't do it.
The district is a left-leaning district that doesn't want incompetent ideologues in office aka Burner. Anybody without Reichert's stature would have went down in flames in both '06 and '08. Anybody who doubts this doesn't understand politics.
Posted by: Cliff on August 25, 2009 07:25 AMReichert is the enemy within.
Which makes him far far more dangerous than Burner could ever be.
That is why he needs to be removed. Sure he votes with us sometimes when the votes are going in our direction anyway. But that doesn't make up for how he erodes the party from with in.
I rather have an enemy like Burner than a "Friend" like Reichert any day. Burner could never stab me in the back.
Posted by: Steve on August 25, 2009 09:15 AMLook, use the remaining year or so to find a new position. Perhaps the Romney 2012 campaign is hiring already.
For Dave is GOING DOWN!
If he doesn't then our country is.
Posted by: Steve on August 25, 2009 09:19 AMUntil the moment he switched parties. Then all the things principled people had been saying about him magically became true.
It is people like you Cliff that have driven people away from the Republican party. Either we will win on principle or we will not win.
If we think we are going to win by becoming more Democrat, well if I was inclined to vote that way I would simply well vote for a Democrat.
So you aren't winning anyone on the left over but you are sure making a lot of people on the Right simply not vote.
But they will be voting in 2010. They will be voting for the Democrat to Defeat Reichert in the general if he can't be removed in the primary.
That is if Reichert doesn't switch parties first. And like I said it he does then magically over night he becomes to you what any principled person has been saying about him for years.
Reichert demoralizes the Republican party. Having a Darcy like Democrat in the eight would revitalize the party and move it forward towards 2012.
Anyone but Reichert in 2010. Then we can do it right in 2012. And besides if he doesn't vote for us when it counts we really haven't lost anything anyway.
Posted by: Steve on August 25, 2009 09:27 AMWe hurt the party when we get moderates elected.
And that ultimately leads to getting extreme democrats elected.
Look at Bush. Because of him we got Obama. And Bush's father led us to Clinton.
So, if you want to eventually have someone even worse than Obama vote for Romney next time around. He will mess things up so bad that the country will then again vote for an extreme Democrat.
Or you could say READ MY LIPS NO NEW BUSHES (or Romney) and then run a candidate of principle. In the end you still might lose but we are losing anyway even when we get "our candidate" elected.
Better to lose with honor than to lose with cowardness. A vote for Bush a vote for Romney is a cowardly vote that just leads to a more extreme Democrat getting elected soon after.
And by the way, it is a Liberal lie to say that principled candidates lose. Reagan won as a conservative. The Republican Revolution ran on conservative ideals (only unfortunately not to put these ideals into practice which led to their ultimate defeat) so it is a lie to say that principled conservatism doesn't win. It does.
But even if it didn't. I rather lose on principled conservatism than to "win" by getting someone in office that is going to disgrace the party like BOTH BUSHES did and lead to a extreme Democrat getting elected. If that is your definition of "victory" then you are one sick fuck!
Posted by: Gene on August 25, 2009 09:39 AMBut they do respond to people who believe what they believe in.
The Liberals, when they are out there pushing what they are pushing they believe it. You have to give them credit there.
But the Republicans and I am talking about the candidates now, not the grassroots, they don't believe in what they are pushing. They just want to be in office and half the time they don't even understand the policies they are pushing. And they are cautious. The hedge everything they say.
So if I was a person who didn't really understand conservatism and didn't really understand liberalism I see one candidate who you can tell really believes in what he or she is doing and the other candidate who you can tell doesn't then you are going to go with that first candidate.
But when you get a candidate who really believes, and I mean really believes in conservatism then the otherwise uninformed voter looks at the person the same way and that person is quite often successful.
Republicans can put out either True Believers or phonies next time out. If they put out phonies then people are going to see that and go with the confident Left. Regardless of what the polls are saying now.
Posted by: Nancy on August 25, 2009 10:00 AMNice try. Purposely misinterpret my words, repeat your misinterpretation then accuse me of doublespeak: typical liberal obfuscation... in other words LYING to make a point.
Yes Dave was 'hired' because he appeared more conservative than moonbat burner. Yes bambi was 'hired' by this district because he presented himself as more moderate than moonbat burner. NEITHER of those comments is in oppostion to the other. NEITHER is false.
Keep trying.
Yes, Dave is done.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 25, 2009 11:33 AMI don't. I volunteered a lot for his 2004 campaign though.
And the idea that you are going to beat Reichert in the primary is laughable. Have fun voting for a D if you want. But if you then call me a RINO I'll just laugh at you.
You know Cliff, if Reichert does switch parties then what will you be saying about him.
Yah, I'll look like a real idiot if Dino Rossi becomes a transsexual liberal hippie too.
But that isn't going to happen either. And you're a fucking idiot if you think it will.
I remember how people like you were saying what a great guy Rodney Tom was. Oh, yeah, great guy he was.
Yah, because I've clearly done that. :Yawn:
Posted by: Cliff on August 25, 2009 12:28 PMARE YOU REALLY THIS CLUELESS?!?!
Nice try. Purposely misinterpret my words, repeat your misinterpretation then accuse me of doublespeak: typical liberal obfuscation... in other words LYING to make a point.
I did no such thing.
Yes Dave was 'hired' because he appeared more conservative than moonbat burner. Yes bambi was 'hired' by this district because he presented himself as more moderate than moonbat burner. NEITHER of those comments is in oppostion to the other. NEITHER is false.
OBAMA WASN'T RUNNING AGAINST DARCY BURNER IF YOU DIDN'T NOTICE. And he was running well to the left of John McCain, even if he did appear more "moderate" then he really was.
Obama running as a "moderate" is irrelevant. He was the more left wing of the two candidates and he won big. You cannot say just because he appeared more moderate then he really was that clearly, the district wanted a hard-right wing Congressmen.
At least not and make even a little bit of sense. But I guess that isn't really a requirement for you.
Posted by: Cliff on August 25, 2009 12:35 PMAnd no we never expected dave to be "a hard-right wing Congressmen" (...and why does that always sound like a condemnation epithet coming from your type??). We did expect him to not fall for lefty/commie propaganda and then commit our tax dollars to it. If his constituents were truly equally divided (as the fellow from his office to whom I spoke on the day of the vote claimed) we would expect him to err on the side of the party platform that supported him and constituents that hired him.
Get over yourself cliff.
We're over dave.
Then you must know Larry Corrigan.
Whatever happened to him? It's like he disappeared from the face of the Earth.
Posted by: Steve on August 26, 2009 04:10 PMIf you are going to blog here and pretend you are a conservative you should probably avoid the profanity that leftists nearly always eventually resort to: (@#44, "You're a fucking idiot.")
It's a dead giveway. Such nice people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 26, 2009 08:53 PMBill: Sometimes, profanity is the only appropriate response to sheer idiocy. This is one of those times.
RJ: No bambi wasn't running against moonbat burner. However, they both have that great big D after their name, moonbat darcy parroted and puppetted bambi AND the local libs connected them every way every time they could. The ONLY difference was that moonbat burner never lied and pretended to be anything other than the fat lefty she is. Liar in chief bambi did, therefore bambi "running as a "moderate" is" NOT irrelevant.
It's not "irrelevant" to him winning the district, it is irrelevant to saying that therefore a hard-core conservative would have won the 8th if he had run as such in the same year.
I'm also a big fan of Cathy McMorris-Rodgers. And she would have had gotten crushed if she had been running in the 8th in '08.
And no we never expected dave to be "a hard-right wing Congressmen"
Umm, so far, we have that he voted for Cap and Trade...therefore he deserves to be shot even though he's clearly one of the few Republicans that can hold the district. (I also think Reagan Dunn could hold the district, based partly on the fact he's a good politician and, of course, partly because of his mother).
Reichert has capitulated to the left-wing on precisely ONE issue, and that's the Environment. That's because it's a bid deal in the district. If Reichert had voted the other way, it still would have passed, and even if he had been the deciding vote, all it would have done is make one more D in a vulnerable district vote for it. He's with us on every other major issue, including the fact that Reichert is pro-life, something Jennifer Dunn wasn't.
(...and why does that always sound like a condemnation epithet coming from your type??).
Umm, because you have wax in your ears maybe? Because the idea of what a "real conservative" is according to the "Reagan Wing" losers makes me sick because it's a betrayal of Reagan and his entire legacy?
I'm a very mainstream conservative. I like both Jim DeMint and Lindsay Graham. I think we need both. I would have voted against Lincoln Chafee however. There are limits. But saying Dave Reichert is over the limit because of cap and trade, especially when it would have passed anyway, is stupid.
If his constituents were truly equally divided (as the fellow from his office to whom I spoke on the day of the vote claimed) we would expect him to err on the side of the party platform that supported him and constituents that hired him.
That's not how politics works and if you ever did anything successful in it, you know that.
Get over yourself cliff.
We're over dave.
Boo hoo.
Posted by: Cliff on August 27, 2009 09:41 AMThat's the Mainstream Socialist Republicans for you!
After all, they also had Ted Bundy among their ranks!
Posted by: Steve on August 27, 2009 12:21 PMWe're over dave.
Boo hoo.
Until he wants our money, volunteerism and votes.
No, no and hell no.
Boo hoo indeed.
I have no use for you mushy in the middles. TAKE A STAND. BE A LIBERAL, BE A CONSERVATIVE BUT TAKE A DAMNED STAND.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 27, 2009 04:28 PMI thought we were done.
Apparently you are a liar.
And anyhow, I do take a stand. I'm a conservative. I like people like Dino Rossi, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dave Riechert.
To paraphrase Henry Jackson: "I'm a conservative, but I'm not a goddamn fool."
Apparently, you cannot say this. Neither can BC.
Posted by: Cliff on August 27, 2009 04:33 PMI do take a stand. I'm a conservative. I like people like Dino Rossi, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dave Reichert.
To paraphrase Henry Jackson: "I'm a conservative, but I'm not a goddamn fool."
Apparently, you cannot say this. Neither can BC.
Posted by: Cliff on August 27, 2009 04:35 PMI have no clue where you came up with that idea.
You were/are wrong. Color me shocked.
Apparently you are a liar.
Thank you for parading your true colors.
This "Cliff" character throws the f-bomb repeatedly. Then he claims to be a conservative. Everyone reading this thread knows he is a liberal.
I just have to say that my tolerence for these people has about run out.
They used to amuse me. Now I am just fed up. I think the entire country is as well.
Cliff: Well, here's this interesting fact and/or observation.
BC and RD: You're a liberal.
Cliff: No, I'm not, I'm just pragmatic. I recognize that a district that votes 58% for Obama probably doesn't want Jesse Helms.
BC and RD: You're a liberal.
Cliff: I've given no evidence of that. I've only said I like winning.
BC and RD: You're a liberal.
Cliff: (growing annoyed) You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I've voted for one Democrat my entire life, and that's when the Republican was certifiably insane and the state party denounced him.
BC and RD: HA! Now we know you are a liberal! You swear! You're a liberal.
Cliff: I give up. Have fun hanging out with Reed Davis.
Posted by: Cliff on August 28, 2009 01:12 PMNope. That's your MO.
Based on your MO and the devolution of your 'arguement' though, I might suggest that if that left you fits, wear it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 28, 2009 06:31 PM
That my friends is central planning! Central planning is evil, ineffective and against everything I believe in. Since he supports it and proudly said so on a conservative radio station, he not only no longer deserves my support, he now deserves my anti support. I will do my best to get him out of office.
Posted by: Lysander on August 29, 2009 09:00 AM