Daniel Kirkdoffer is demonstrating his eerie psychic powers over at On The Road to 2008:
Congressman Reichert has a tendency to flip. Sometimes he’ll simply flop. Often, he’ll change his position on an issue during the time it is being considered by the U.S. House.
We saw him flip on stem cell research.
We saw him flop on raising the minimum wage, before finally supporting a Democratic bill that did just that.
We saw him vote for ANWR drilling, while simultaneously stating his was against it.
Sometimes we’re not sure what exactly is driving his votes, as he has stated that he often votes how his party tells him to vote.
So I’m here to predict that later this year, Dave Reichert will once again flip, but this time on an issue he has voted with the Bush administration 100% of the time: the Iraq occupation.
Of course Reichert will eventually flip-flop on the Iraq war occupation. He’ll have to… at least, if he wants to win reelection. With a 100-percent Bush/Cheney voting record on Iraq in the face of a rising sentiment to bring our troops home, Reichert must either flop where he once flipped, or follow the President’s lead in flipping the bird to public opinion. I’m betting his handlers will convince him to choose the former.
So let’s start a betting pool. Post in the comment thread your prediction of when Reichert will flip-flop on Iraq — that is vote, or make a public statement in opposition to Bush administration policy — and the person who comes closest will win a pitcher of beer (or the cash equivalent) courtesy of HA.
He will admit the invasion was a mistake in April of 2008 in an attempt to save his job, but he will never vote against the President when it comes to this war.
Ditto, but he is so stupid, he will wait until August ’08, then support whatever the Republican candidate say to cover his sorry ass.
This kind of partisan sniping is what the bad guys do. You ought to be above it.
Don’t we want our Representative to change his mind when we, his constituents, demand it? Isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
By labeling a change in his position a “flip-flop,” you make it politically costly for him to do the right thing for the troops and the country.
This post makes it seem that you just want to win elections, which is exactly how Karl Rove approaches government.
David B.
We won’t stop because they won’t stop. It’s not pretty, but there it is.
Reichert will never say that the invasion was a mistake. He will sign onto to some non-binding Republican pablum of a cover-GOP-Congressional ass proposal that won’t require anything of anyone and won’t take effect until, let’s say, after Election Day 2008. Then Bush will veto it and moon the Congress from the Speaker’s chair.
Also David B. @3
Dave Reichert is a Republican, and thus, by definition, is lying to us about what is in his “mind.”
Really? Wait until he sees how costly the opposite of changing his mind is. I think being called a “flip-flopper” is going to look pretty good to him.
You can’t change things unless you win elections. Or do you know some other way? Please do tell.
But I do want that pitcher.
Accordingly, I predict that Dave Reichert will “vote, or make a public statement in opposition to Bush administration policy,” however that ends up being defined by the good HA arbiters of such things, on (when’s the primary? August?) August 23, 2008. When he really sees who he is up against and starts to crank up the old misinofrmation machine.
I also predict that he will do so in a four-color franked mailing, given his fondness for electioneering disguised as constituent outreach. I hope the pitcher doesn’t ride on that, though.
I think he will make a statement after the Petraeus report comes out in September. He will use that report for cover. I predict that around the end of September 2007, Reichert will sort of announce that it might be time to start considering whether Congress might think about looking at committing to a nonbinding resolution to get out of Iraq sometime before the next election, or shortly thereafter. He will add the caveat, however, that nothing he says should be construed to in any way criticize the president.
“they won’t stop”
Stop what?
These people we are fighting with in Iraq have had nothing to do with terrorist attacks against the United States. If that’s what you’re on about, we should be occupying Saudi Arabia and Priest Lake Idaho.
But you’re right about one thing. We won’t stop. Because we are stoooopid.
This exchange between me and Proud Leftist is so good, I am going to post it in every thread on HA from now on. It destroys the Publicans’ stupid talking points – period.
“I’m working really hard to understand how President Bill Clinton’s actions act as justifcation for the righties. Read this fuckwads.
If your lame ass argument is that Bill Clinton was a bad President – which is what you say – and if your argument now is that the AWOL coward GW Bush is in someway comparable to Bill Clinton, what you are actually saying is that GW Bush is NO BETTER THAN CLINTON.
Does it hurt to be that stupid? I really want to know.
proud leftist says:
RES @ 18
You’ve hit it on the nose. The rightwing fringefucks consider Clinton to be the personification of evil–indeed, he is the devil incarnate in their twisted little minds. Nonetheless, their justification for all of the Bushites’ sins is, always, “well, Clinton did it, too.” Methinks they never studied logic.”
And what’s better, is that the rightie traitor keeps pointing out that this is true. Thanks MTR. Please keep proving my point for me.
June 16, 2008.
Reichert will be born again. Praise the Lord!
BTW, again to David B.
The rules of the game were decided upon by the Republicans, and we’re playing by them. They were perhaps best articulated by the character of Jimmy Malone in the movie The Untouchables” (presented with a little of my own paraphrasing):
Fuck yeah, I’m ready. Reichert’s going down. Period.
@3 We can’t do what’s best for the country unless we win elections.
Rubber Stamp Reichert is a follower, not a leader. When Bush’s Iraq policy collapses, Reichert will make noise like he was against it all along. When there’s no longer a war policy to support, he’ll want voters to think he never supported it.
I think Bush’s remaining support for waging war in Iraq will evaporate this fall. Therefore, I pick October 20, 2007 as the date on which Rubber Stamp Reichert starts saying, “War? what war?”
Rubber Stamp Reichert has a lot in common with the investors who bought Krispy Kreme at $50 and rode it all the way down to $5.
Were you a shareholder of Krispy Kreme at one time, Roger?
Just don’t let that Muslin-fucking, ass-licking, traitor MTR bet. He woudn’t pay if he lost.
Is someone keeping score? How does this work? Do we each choose a date?
September 21, 2007
I should probably specify an actual date here. I’ll go with April 29, 2008.
Roger Rabbit @15
Rubber Stamp DEMOCRATS
Reichert is aare followers, not leaders. When Bush’s Iraq policy collapses, DEMOCRATSReichertwill make noise like they werehe wasagainst it all along. When there’s no longer a war policy to support, They’llhe’llwant voters to think theyhenever supported it.This sums up the Democrat position on the war all along!
David B. said:
I’m the first to agree with you about keeping our politics clean and aboveboard, but here, I don’t see this as being underhanded or deceptive. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Provided that he’s willing to do so at a point where it could make a difference, yes.
Unfortunately, it appears that Rep Reichert will wait until the tide in Congress has turned so far against the war that his vote will be meaningless, then he’ll try to take credit for being an “independent thinker”. That type of hypocrisy is a fair target for criticism.
If Rep Reichert were to have a complete and total change of heart, and we could somehow know that it was legitimate, rather than simply a campaign gimmick, I might agree.
Unfortunately, Rep Reichert has a track record that speaks clearly about his loyalties and priorities, and they are not compatible with ours, so yes, we want to win.
The differences will be that while the Rove techniques are used to hide information, deceive voters and discourage legitimate voters, our techniques are to honestly inform voters and encourage them to vote.
We don’t even try to discourage Republican voters (although I probably won’t be deliberately calling Republicans to remind them to vote, as I do for Democrats), because we know that when we have a strong overall voter turnout, it helps us.
Oh, and put me in for the 17th of September. Early in the week to get the most coverage from the news media, and by that time the war won’t have enough votes left that his could make any difference.
Then he’ll announce that he has had “grave concerns” for “many months” and has been privately advising the President all along that it was a bad idea.
It’s so WEIRD that Democrats want to win elections, isn’t it?
I mean, it’s not like Republicans ever wanted to win elections, or played hardball to do so. Oh, no. Perish the thought.
Hey, did I mention that our occupation of Iraq is a horrendous failure?
Since there is beer to be won, my exact day guess is October 19, via a quiet end of week announcement.
I’ll say he goes down with the ship, and doesn’t flip-flop until Nov. 5, 2008, the day after he loses the election. But since I don’t drink, geez…..Oh well, give it to my hero Roger!
March 19, 2008.
Happy anniversary, flip flopper!
Never.
The worm will never say that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. I can see him trying to use rhetoric to try to make it appear he has changed his position when he really hasn’t, but I don’t see him ever actually changing his position in any substantial way.
I hope the scumbag sinks like a stone next election.
I hate fascists.
@17 No. Never.
@17 There ain’t anything in those donuts except a hole.
December 20, 2007
December 4, 2007
Never ever ever. But that’s a long time from now, so I guess I’ll just buy my own pitcher.