Reversing a position he took in the heat of his 2006 reelection campaign, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert joined 170 fellow House Republicans in signing on to a letter to FCC Chair Julius Genachowski, urging him not to proceed with plans to protect Net Neutrality by reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service.”
In a 2006 debate with challenger Darcy Burner, Reichert claimed strong support for Net Neutrality in response to a question from the Seattle Times’ Ryan Blethen:
I also support net neutrality. [The Internet] should be an equal place where people to come, equal companies to come. It should be the choice of the people, when they Google, the biggest company doesn’t come up, but the company that the people have chosen as the most important site pops up. That’s why I supported, and voted for, net neutrality.
Yet now that Reichert feels safely ensconced in incumbency, in an arguably Republican-leaning year, he has apparently abandoned his former stance, and joined colleagues Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris Rodgers in toeing the Republican Party line against the interests of his Internet dependent district.
Not that such an unprincipled reversal should come as much of a surprise from a congressman who, in the absence of reporters, routinely brags about the calculated manner in which he casts his votes. Did Reichert ever really support Net Neutrality? Did he even understand the issue? Or was this merely a position he was advised he had to take when facing off against the net-savvy Burner in his net-savvy district, and in the midst of a blue wave election?
And given the way Reichert proudly claims (behind closed doors) a “90/10” Republican voting record in what he acknowledges to be a “50/50 district,” voters must wonder if there any issues on which he can be trusted to take an unwavering, principled stand. As Josh succinctly explains over at Publicola:
We’re not rubes, we get how politicians work. However, Reichert’s candor belies the credit he’s been given by Seattle Times for being “principled,” a reason they’ve given their hundreds of thousands of readers to vote for him.
More important, if Reichert isn’t an environmentalist at heart, voters should know that because when push comes to shove on future bills (when he’s more confident with his long term incumbency), he may feel comfy voting his real conscience.
That’s assuming Reichert actually has a “real conscience” on anything other than abortion, the one issue he privately admits drove him into the arms of the anti-choice Republican Party.
So much for his “conscience-driven independent streak.”
Reichert’s only goal is to further the interests of Dave Reichert.
Republicans believe that this is a valid position for a public servant to take, but I don’t.
For those that didn’t click the link to Josh’s piece, it also contains the stammering, pathetic response of Kurt Fritts (WCV) to Goldy’s earlier piece regarding the Reichert fundraiser sponsored by Enviro leadership and in common cause with the ID bigots.
As an enviro activist myself, I hope HA’ers will them let know how much we really, really hate that.
Washington needs a Dave Reichert in the Senate.*
*I threw up in my mouth a little retreiving that link.
Geez Goldy, you sure get wrapped around the axel about past Seattle Times endorsements of Dave Reichert. You trash the paper & ink media all the time. If you’re so sure that newspapers are on their way out the door, then who’s reading the Times anyway? (besides you, obviously)
Fact is, Reichert is a shoo-in for reelection in 2010 so you’re grasping at straws in the hopes that your 3 or 4 regular readers might consider voting for his opponent (whomever that ends up being this time).
re 4: If Reichert were a ‘shoo in’ the Republicans would not need to spend so much money on defending his seat. Fact is, the East side is becoming bluer and the only thing that keeps Reichert in congress are the Republican lunkheads in Pierce county.
Not that it matters a lot–the Internet is soon going to collapse under its own weight, and increasing fear on the part of both individual and corporate users about security. This will drive everything to the pay-as-you-go, sanitized and policed 3G/4G cellular phone network. Apple and Research In Motion saw this coming a long time ago, and Microsoft, as usual, is late coming to the game but intends to try to grab the ball, bribe the refs and kick all the other players in their naughty bits.
Meanwhile, if you see any photos or TV news clips of Sheriff Dave, look for him using his brand-new iPhone, no doubt free gratis courtesy of his dear friends at AT&T.
6
Davey’s pretty dim. I’m not at all sure he could figure out how to use an iPhone. Of course, I would put it past him to carry one around as a prop to make him look with it, even if he can’t work it.
I’m wondering who’s paying his bills these days. Comcast? Verizon? AT&T?
Of course, the funny thing is that there was a guy from Japan in our office this past week, complaining about the speed from our T-1 line. He was convinced something must be wrong with it. It was embarrasing to admit to him that this was the fastest service we could get in our location.
Let me see…
Reichart’s running for re-election in the House in one of the most tech-savy regions in the country, on the principle that large corporations should be able to control access to the information and communications via the internet based on that corporation’s own self-interest.
Rossi’s running for election in the Senate based on the principle that he won’t even make an effort to get federal tax dollars spent in Washington state, and will allow it to go to other states instead.
I’m beginning to wonder if the Democrats didn’t slip a ringer into these guy’s campaign staffs. You couldn’t think up a better plan to sabatoge their campaigns if you tried.
Hate to say it, but Reichert will probably get re-elected.
While the WA-08 has been trending Dem, there’s still enough GOP strength on the eastside and rural pockets to overcome the trend.
Although, in 2-3 more election cycles I doubt that will continue to hold.
If only Dave Reichert had George Bush’s strong principles.
@11
Don’t forget that between 2010 and 2012 Congressional districts will be redrawn. Even if WA doesn’t get a 10th CD the partisan makeup of most districts will change a bit. Based on population trends the 8th is almost certain to be bluer after the lines are re-drawn.
Curiously enough, the 8th doesn’t quite include the main campus of Microsoft, nor the big facilities of AT&T in Bothell and Redmond Town Center. However, it does include the poshest neighborhoods in Bellevue, Mercer Island and “The Points”…which would included the residences of most of those outfits’ mid- to upper-echelon executives.
Maybe Dave Reichert read some of Cass Sunstein’s great work on Net Neutrality and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Julius Genachowski decision on Thursday May 6th to ignore the courts edict and implement “network neutrality” on the nation’s broadband networks and he changed his mind.
Remember the federal appeals court recently ruled against the FCC and questioned their ability and authority to regulate U.S. broadband providers.
That little federal court ruling fact seemed to escape the most libtardo of the drunken moron crowd!
Ans where is the voice of Suzan DelBene or, for that matter, McDermott, or the Dems?
Howsabout giving Mr. Rossi this to where around his HIS neck?
Puddy,
WTF …
I though you were a libertarian? Net neutrality IS libertarian.
Or maybe you think it ouwld be a good idea for BP to decide only to sell gas to non Jews (since BP is owned by Kuwaitis?”
How do you feel about Rand Paul and the rights of private citizens to keep keep africans out of their restaurants/ OK by you?
Now that Puddy is back SJ asked Puddy about Rand Paul. You asked the wrong question SJ and you know it. You do that a lot SJ. You as slanted questions knowing you try to put Puddy in a corner. It’s not about Africans and you know it SJ!
Ask the right question SJ! Puddy will gladly answer.
BTW SJ, did you read Cass Sunstein’s “great thoughts”?