HorsesAss.Org

Independent thinking on Reichert

by — ,

The more I think of this race, the more I think Burner might be the right candidate in the right place at the right time.

That’s the message I want to take away from Joni Balter’s column today in the Seattle Times. [Can Burner bushwhack Reichert?]

I want to thank Balter for recognizing and corroborating what us bloggers have been saying for months… that Darcy Burner is mounting a surprisingly strong challenge to first-term Republican Rep. Dave Reichert in Washington’s 8th Congressional District, and that Reichert himself appears to be weaker than anybody had expected this time last year. I want to acknowledge Balter for acknowledging that this is a race that’s simply too close to call.

But I just can’t get past her second paragraph:

Reichert may not be the sharpest pencil in the backpack, but he has charisma to bottle and sell. More important, in his first term he distinguished himself as an independent thinker.

Well… I’ll give Balter the first clause of the first sentence. And while I’ve never understood the supposed charms of the silver-haired, leaden-tongued ex-Sheriff I’ll grant that the second clause seems to be the consensus. It’s the second sentence that makes me want to tear out what little hair I have left.

Reichert an “independent thinker?” Gimme a break.

In truth, neither of the two words apply, but it’s the adjective “independent” when applied to Reichert that particularly gives me heartburn. The fact that Reichert keeps claiming he’s “independent” and the fact that columnists like Balter keep repeating it uncritically just doesn’t make it so. But despite the fact that evidence to contrary keeps piling up — and despite the fact that Reichert himself has publicly boasted that the House GOP leadership tells him when to vote against them — the damn newspapers keep writing about Reichert’s supposed moderation.

So Reichert voted against the GOP’s self-righteous and politically cruel Terri Schiavo bill because he himself had already gone through the painful personal decisions surrounding a loved one’s end of life. So he can feel a little empathy. Good for him. Though I’m not sure we should always count on our representatives to have personal experiences to guide them through every contentious vote.

But apart from the Schiavo bill (a vote, by the way, that surely had no political downside in his home district) Reichert has never cast a vote against the House leadership or the Bush administration when it really counted. As Daniel Kirkdorffer has meticulously detailed at On the Road to 2008, the bulk of Reichert’s so-called “moderate” votes — those times he voted with the majority of House Democrats — came on procedural roll calls on issues of broad bipartisan agreement. And the handful of times he went against his party’s leadership on contentious issues, the final count was never so close that Reichert came near casting the deciding vote.

Take Reichert’s supposed opposition to drilling in ANWR, a vote Reichert once described as one he’s most proud of. Balter echoes the party line:

Reichert represents his district admirably on a few environmental issues by opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in certain votes.

Yeah sure, Reichert opposed drilling in ANWR in “certain votes.” You know… those that didn’t really count. But after casting several high profile votes against drilling in roll calls that were never close enough to make a difference, Reichert voted for the final appropriations bill that included the drilling provision.

Way to save ANWR, Dave.

Look, I don’t expect Balter or any other paid journalist to be as biased as I am, but it would be nice to occasionally see a little consistency. The local media just spent a week cynically deconstructing the internal workings of the Cantwell campaign, and yet they continue to naively take Reichert’s voting record at face value… even when he publicly instructs his conservative base not to.

Is Reichert anywhere close to being the most conservative member of Congress? Well, that would be kinda hard. There are some real nutcases in the House and apart from Reichert’s fairly staunch opposition to reproductive rights (um… all of them) he doesn’t really exude much passion on any other issue. Yet when push comes to shove he has proven himself to be a reliable vote on behalf of the administration… which is exactly the reason why President Bush flew cross-country to raise money for Reichert in the first place.

When you put Reichert’s “yeas” and “nays” in context, he just doesn’t come off as much of an “independent thinker.” But then sometimes, neither do Balter and her colleagues.

Comments

  1. 1

    The person most able to get the trad-med to question Reichert’s claims is Darcy. She needs to go after the image Reichert is attempting to assume.

  2. 2

    RubberStampReichert hugs the CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVE* agenda, not rabbits.

    * “When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just ‘dime-store economics’ … ‘cheap labor,’ that’s their whole philosophy in a nutshell … if you are a wealthy elite … your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool forced to work cheap.” http://www.conceptualguerilla......php?id=103

  3. 3

    Just an FYI, the On The Road To 2008 link Goldy points to will be available again soon – server problems right now. Check again later.

  5. 5

    Just an FYI, the On The Road To 2008 link Goldy points to will be available again soon – server problems right now. Check again later.

    No sooner than I wrote that the server became available again.

  6. 6

    RubberStamp’s vote to keep the federal minimum wage at $5.15 an hour is utterly shameful. This was a vote for taxpayer subsidies of affluent business owners. It simply boils down to this: When employers don’t pay workers what it costs to provide their labor, taxpayers make up the difference through subsidized housing and health care, food assistance, and welfare.

    No businessman would keep a horse to pull a delivery wagon, if the horse’s upkeep cost the businessman $300 a month but the delivery wagon brought in only $200 a month.

    Yet that’s exactly what RubberStampReichert and other Republicans expect workers to do: To provide their labor for less than the cost of their minimum subsistence.

    Reichert treats horses better than people. That’s why he doesn’t belong in Congress. Cleaning horse stalls at a Humane Society farm is a better use of his limited talents.

  7. 7

    If Reichert was such an independent thinker he wouldn’t simply be doing what Republican leadership tells him to do. And he would have hand picked his own staff – instead of having the Republican leadership do so for him.

    Independent thinker must be another way for the press to say “has no idea what’s going on”.

  8. 8

    “Independent Republican” is an oxymoron. The current Republican leadership does not permit real variance from the party line. Not since Newt Gingrich took center stage for the Republicans has independent thought been permitted. Occasional forays from the party line are permitted when no adverse consequences will result and such might help with electoral prospects. Republicans are the American Taliban. In any event, Dave Reichert is intellectually incapable of independent thought even if such a phenomenon were permitted by his party leaders. The boy just ain’t very smart.

  9. 9

    Politics ultimately is about how people treat each other. Republicans want to treat workers like donkeys. That’s why we don’t have laissez faire capitalism in this country anymore. That’s why we have laws against discrimination, minimum wage laws, the Taft-Hartley Act, labor lawyers, and a “social safety net.” Republicans want to dismantle all of it, and restore 19th-century laissez faire industrial slavery, so they can get away with treating us like donkeys.

  11. 11

    10

    Nice picture of the Biltmore Estate, Rog. I’ve been there. It’s located on the border of Pisgah National Forest, near Asheville, NC. It cost $7,000,000 to build back in the 1880s, but the Vandebilt Family gave it to the State of North Carolina ’cause they didn’t want to pay the upkeep and taxes.

    Fun Facts On-Line!!

  12. 12

    Not one right winger on this board has ever articulated why we should vote for RubberStampReichert. Here are some reasons we should NOT vote for him.

    1) He votes with the corrupt and illegal Bush regime almost all the time.
    2) He’s afraid to debate.
    3) He took 20 plus years to catch a high school dropout who murdered dozens on RSR’s watch.
    4) His rumors of wife trouble mean we could have another republican scandal, this one tied to our state.

  13. 13

    RubberStamp’s vote to keep the federal minimum wage at $5.15 an hour is utterly shameful. This was a vote for taxpayer subsidies of affluent business owners. It simply boils down to this: When employers don’t pay workers what it costs to provide their labor, taxpayers make up the difference through subsidized housing and health care, food assistance, and welfare.

    No businessman would keep a horse to pull a delivery wagon, if the horse’s upkeep cost the businessman $300 a month but the delivery wagon brought in only $200 a month.

    Yet that’s exactly what RubberStampReichert and other Republicans expect workers to do: To provide their labor for less than the cost of their minimum subsistence. -Commentby Roger Rabbit— 7/20/06@ 11:59 am

    Whine to the smarmy, one woman Communist governament, the Hillarybitch and her slurpee-maker pig of a “husband”…

    MINIMUM-WAGE HYPOCRISY

    “ Congress’s pay is indexed to increases in the cost of living, but the minimum wage is not. And whose fault is that? “

    “ In 1996, I asked President Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) if they would consider accepting an indexation of the minimum wage as an alternative to the one-shot increase that eventually passed. Lott said yes. Clinton said no. Had the president agreed, the minimum wage would now be closing in on $7, not enough to live on but a lot better than its current, paltry level. “

    “ Now Hillary Clinton is attacking the administration and the Republican Congress for raising congressional pay while turning down a minimum-wage increase. But it was her husband’s desire that the minimum wage not be indexed. “

    “ The Democratic Party likes the annual fight to raise the minimum wage. It uses the issue to keep its base united, loyal … and poor. “

    “ The answer is to index the minimum wage so that it goes up with the cost of living. “

    “ Much of the debate over the minimum wage is, of course, obviated by the earned-income tax credit which kicks in for all minimum-wage mothers. The credit, plus Medicaid eligibility, plus food stamps, plus day-care allowances, plus rent subsidies, plus exemption from income taxes, means that those who earn the minimum wage really have a pre-tax income equivalent over $20,000. “

    “ Of course Hillary, who won’t release her tax returns but who earned, with her husband, $18 million on their book deals and who profits from his over $7 million annual income from speeches and who benefits from Bill’s potentially massive earnings from his Dubai relationship, can afford to oppose the congressional pay raise. But if indexation is good for Congress, why is it not good for the poor? “

    Eileen McGann co-authored this column.

  14. 14

    “ In 1996, I asked President Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) if they would consider accepting an indexation of the minimum wage as an alternative to the one-shot increase that eventually passed. Lott said yes. Clinton said no. Had the president agreed, the minimum wage would now be closing in on $7, not enough to live on but a lot better than its current, paltry level. “

    http://www.vote.com/magazine/c.....7488.phtml

  15. 15

    Had the slurpee-pig President agreed to indexing minimum wage, it would be close to $7/hour right now.

    The slurpee-pig pres said NO, between spurpee milkings.

  16. 16

    That’s right, attack Clinton. The subject is how gormless and unelectable RUBBER STAMP REICHERT IS! Get some help, Jackass!

  17. 17

    The slurpee-pig pres had a whole lot more to do with the minimum wage than 1 little Reichart vote out of out of 435 in the House.

    Amazing that you give one little representative (out of out of 435) who you hate, so much power!

  19. 19

    Dear little Darcy the sacrificial donkette, you need cash, you need gravitas, you need a political godfather to mentor you along. Since you seem to do most of your campaigning out of district anyway, I bet if you made an emergency big-gulp visit to Chappaqua, the slurpee-pig-in-chief will beg his wife of convenience to smile benevolently upon you. Just a suggestion.

  20. 20

    Whine, spin, thrash about. . .but live with the fact that your so called third-tier candidate is making a serious run at knocking off one of the more feckless and vacuous members of the House. Not power, fool, Vacuousness, gormlessness, and idiocy are his hallmarks.

  21. 21

    Awww little kill has been doing his vocab homework… finally… how cute.

    darcy who?

  24. 25

    ASS is a real independent – she let’s her favorite right-wing propaganda sites do the non-thinking for her.

  26. 27

    Not one right winger on this board has ever articulated why we should vote for RubberStampReichert.

    It must be something about the hair…

  27. 28

    Jackass, your vacuous following of the VANISHING LEMMING REPUBLICAN MINORITY reveals you for what you are. . .just another Republican Lemming Troll
    Dave Reichert is a VACUOUS CIPHER, a GORMLESS NEO-CONVICT ROBOT.
    Enough ZOMBIE politics. Vote Darcy Burner.
    Vote for someone who has a brain, and unlike Reichert who openly admits he votes as he is told to vote. Vote for some one who will represent the 8th. Unlike Reichert, who runs away from his constituents. . .”campaigning for what can be described as one of the most “populist” positions in our federal government.
    Vote for Darcy Burner.
    DO NOT VOTE FOR A VACUOUS CIPHER LIKE Dave Reichert.

  28. 29

    Seems others don’t share your confidence….

    Shaken, Not Stirred
    Angry Left tribune Markos “Kos” Moulitsas is feeling gloomy about the Democrats’ chances in this year’s elections:

    One of the reasons, I am pessimistic about November is that I don’t see Democrats turning out in huge numbers in the contests we’ve had so far. Democrats are so afraid to lead and inspire, that rank and file Democrats are unmotivated to turn out.

    And it won’t matter how poorly Republicans do, and how many Republicans tune out of the electoral process, if we can’t get our own people to vote.

    The Republicans are making a mess of things. Democrats don’t seem to be learning their lessons. So why should they get vested in the elections and participate? So they can get their hearts broken in yet another November? It was a sentiment I saw a great deal of while traveling the country in my book tour, and it shook me greatly.

    Seems he agrees with George Nethercutt–though even if they’re both right, for the sake of 2008 Nethercutt’s fellow Republicans would do well to heed his advice and not get complacent.

  29. 30

    #12,
    Quit saying that Dave Reichert caught the Green River Killer. He did not. Please read Ann Rule’s book on the case. Dave Reichert did not think that Ridgeway was the killer. He opposed the idea of a search warrent for his house and his dna. He thought going after Ridgeway was a waste of time. Reichert thought the GRK would have to be a smart, well educated person. As if it takes a great deal of brians to killer youbg ladies that are willing to get into your truck and house late at night. But if Reichert had his way and was in charge in 1987 Ridgeway would still be free and still be killing today.

  30. 31

    ASS:

    Notice that Dick Morris was the co-author of the column you are citing and the person claiming personal knowledge of the events recited therein. Given that Morris is one of the slimiest, amoral opportunists around, that automatically renders the entire account questionable, if not obviously untrue.

  31. 32

    Given that Morris is one of the slimiest, amoral opportunists around, that automatically renders the entire account questionable, if not obviously untrue.

    You are correct: after all, he was asshole buddies wih Bill & Hillary for a time. That make for a pretty slimy trio!

  32. 33

    I continue to find it interesting that while you accuse Reichert of being nothing more than a safe vote for the party, that is exactly why you are voting for darcy. You know nothing about her, other than she will vote the way the dem leadership tells her to vote. Her views are dictated by the party. I have yet to hear her say anything that contradicted the dem line.

    The closest she comes is in her comments about the Iraq war. Then she references her brother, who is honorably serving there, and doesn’t say anything else. I wonder if he approves of her using him as a political prop for her campaign.

    Other than that, she has no public record. We have no idea how she reacts in unscripted moments, or how she would react to a challenge. This campaign should get fun – there is no way a novice like her can’t avoid stepping in it somewhere along the way.

    BTW, Reichert was appointed to county sheriff, then elected to the position. The people of King County must have thought he was more capable than the naysayers here want to remember.

  33. 34

    “No businessman would keep a horse to pull a delivery wagon, if the horse’s upkeep cost the businessman $300 a month but the delivery wagon brought in only $200 a month.”

    “Yet that’s exactly what RubberStampReichert and other Republicans expect workers to do: To provide their labor for less than the cost of their minimum subsistence.”

    “Reichert treats horses better than people. That’s why he doesn’t belong in Congress. Cleaning horse stalls at a Humane Society farm is a better use of his limited talents.”

    Commentby Roger Rabbit— 7/20/06@ 11:59 am

    Roger Chipmunk – If you believe your bullshit why do you support a cheap labor corporate Dem like Cantwell(D-Mexico, voted for NAFTA and CAFTA)who wants a minimum wage of UNDER $8/hr? Do you think that less than $8/hr provides “minimum subsistence;” even you know better than that.

    Why not $20/hr or at least a $15/hr minimum wage if you believe in “minimum subsistence?” Maybe Reichert is holding out for at least $15/hr while the cheap labor corporate Dems like Cantwell(D-Mexico,voted against building a fence on the southern border so that the cheap labor illegal aliens can keep coming)insist on keeping the minimum wage under $8/hr.

    I bet that Burner thinks the minimum wage should be less that $8/hr just like Cantwell(D-Mexico, voted to give illegal aliens social security benefits). She’s just another cheap labor Dem.

    By the way, I heard you call the Goldstein show and you sound like a screeching chipmunk;not a rabbit.

  34. 35

    Hey, if little kids want to work, it’s up to the Republicans to help them fulfill their destinies!

  35. 36

    34

    Oh please! This rightwing garbage of raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour is getting tiresome. Nobody is proposing that. The purpose of the minimum wage law is to keep businesses from shifting their labor costs to taxpayers. When people make only $5.15 an hour, the government has to support them, because nobody can live on $5.15 an hour. The minimum wage doesn’t have to be (and shouldn’t be) $20 an hour, it should roughly correlate with the subsistence cost of living.

  36. 37

    Well at lest Reichert did not vote for Terry shivo lol and compared to Jennifer Dunn he is down right liberal.

    But I am hopping the Democrat will win sense there isn’t any Socialist candidates running. :-)

  37. 38

    If a product or service can’t be sold for enough to cover the costs of the labor required to produce it, then it shouldn’t be produced. Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize less-than-marginal goods and services.

  38. 39

    If a business activity is uneconomic at a subsistence-wages labor cost, then taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to subsidize it by supporting the workers.

  39. 40

    34

    “americafirst”? No, your ilk put yourselves first and America last. Get a new screen name; this one is a lie.

  41. 42

    There’s a record from RubberStampReichert and it’s a bad one. All we have to do is look at how he runs his nose up Bush’s ass to know we couldn’t do worse. And Janet S since you prove here with great regularity, that you don’t know shit, how is it you propose to tell us what we do and don’t know about Darcy? On top of being a right wing, nazi, racist, homophobe, inbred, coward and traitor are you a mind reader too?

  43. 44

    11

    7 million bucks? In a few more years, you won’t be able to get a condo in Wallingford for that.

  44. 45

    11

    I wonder what’s gonna happen to Bill Gates’ version of Biltmore in Medina when he doesn’t need it anymore? Do you suppose it’ll become a museum, or a conference center?

  45. 46

    11

    Didn’t the Hearst family give San Simeon to the state of California for the same reason?

  46. 47

    Didn’t the Hearst family give San Simeon to the state of California for the same reason?

    Commentby Roger Rabbit— 7/20/06@ 4:17 pm

    =====

    Beats me, roger, but it sounds logical.

  49. 50

    13

    “Much of the debate over the minimum wage is, of course, obviated by the earned-income tax credit which kicks in for all minimum-wage mothers. The credit, plus Medicaid eligibility, plus food stamps, plus day-care allowances, plus rent subsidies, plus exemption from income taxes, means that those who earn the minimum wage really have a pre-tax income equivalent over $20,000.”

    I don’t think it obviates the debate at all. The debate is whether taxpayers should subsidize the labor costs of low-wage employers. It’s essentially the same question as whether taxpayers should pay for toxic cleanups while letting polluters off the hook. And the GOP’s position on both issues is the same: Business owners get a free ride, and taxpayers get the bills. It’s all very consistent — Republicans are

    F R E E L O A D E R S

  50. 51

    13

    “Much of the debate over the minimum wage is, of course, obviated by the earned-income tax credit which kicks in for all minimum-wage mothers. The credit, plus Medicaid eligibility, plus food stamps, plus day-care allowances, plus rent subsidies, plus exemption from income taxes, means that those who earn the minimum wage really have a pre-tax income equivalent over $20,000.”

    This, of course, is exactly my point — Congress’ refusal to raise the minimum wage means taxpayers pay more for all of the things listed above.

  51. 52

    13

    So let’s see. If someone making $5.15 an hour (which is slightly over $10,000 a year) has an income of $20,000 a year after EIC etc., then taxpayers are paying about half the cost of that worker’s subsistence needs. Quite a deal for low-paying businessmen. But I’m tired of paying for it. How about you?

  52. 53

    Let’s see. Howard Schulz made $150 million profit on his sale of the Sonics, and some basketball players have contracts for over $100 million, but the team isn’t a going concern unless the taxpayers fork over $200 million for an arena.

    Seems to me if a company can’t make a profit without taxpayer subsidies, it shouldn’t be in business. After all, a basketball team isn’t critical to national security or anything. Hell, it doesn’t even create jobs. At least this state got several thousand high-paying jobs for the $3 billion it gave Boeing; the Sonics, at most, contribute only a few part-time minimum-wage peanut-vendor jobs to the local economy.

  53. 54

    15

    So the $5.15 minimum wage is now Bill Clinton’s fault? After every Democrat in Congress voted to increase it, and nearly all the Republicans in Congress (including Reichert) voted to keep the minimum wage at $5.15, the $5.15 minimum wage is Clinton’s fault?

  54. 55

    According to BradBlog, a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows only 2% of African-Americans support Bush.

    So, PuddingBrains, do all your friends call you “Uncle Tom?”

  55. 56

    I’m gonna vote for Reichert because the last fucking thing we need is another moonbat woman representing us, but I’m gonna hafta hold my nose while I do it.

    Here’s a perfect example:
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....rt20m.html

    C’mon… asking the girlz in the office how to vote? ‘Cause they got some kind of unique perspective? WTF is that? What possible unique perspective could they have? What about the broader constituency? Doesn’t he care about the redneck vote?

    Me and my redneck buddies have nicknamed him “One Term Reichert”. That SAS doesn’t mean we want a moonbat or a woman to replace him, but he’s clearly not one of “us”.

  56. 57

    30

    If Reichert had done his job, Maleng wouldn’t have been forced to trade away the death penalty to find the bodies.

  59. 60

    “There’s a record from RubberStampReichert and it’s a bad one. All we have to do is look at how he runs his nose up Bush’s ass to know we couldn’t do worse. And Janet S since you prove here with great regularity, that you don’t know shit, how is it you propose to tell us what we do and don’t know about Darcy? On top of being a right wing, nazi, racist, homophobe, inbred, coward and traitor are you a mind reader too?”

    I love quoting left turn because it just proves how to make a convincing argument. I say we know nothing about darcy. LT responds, not by telling me about darcy, but with a string of pointless invective. Gosh, I’m convinced. It is a sad, psychotic world you live in.

  64. 65

    Rabbit and Clueless obviously choose not to debate me on facts. ‘Cause I kick their asses every time. So the personal attacks. Typical libruls…

    I win
    I win
    I win

  65. 66

    Here’s a reason to vote for Reichert.

    He’s not a moonbat woman. That’s the ONLY reason however…

  67. 68

    Redneck @ 56
    What are the characteristics that qualify an individual as one of “us”? I’m curious as to what counts as positive attributes in a group which might include you as a member.

  68. 69

    “Oh please! This rightwing garbage of raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour is getting tiresome. Nobody is proposing that. The purpose of the minimum wage law is to keep businesses from shifting their labor costs to taxpayers. When people make only $5.15 an hour, the government has to support them, because nobody can live on $5.15 an hour. The minimum wage doesn’t have to be (and shouldn’t be) $20 an hour, it should roughly correlate with the subsistence cost of living.”

    Commentby Roger Rabbit— 7/20/06@ 4:06 pm

    Roger – If the justification for minimum wage is to provide “the subsistence cost of living” why is the minimum wage the same for a retired person who already is well above subsistence level and just wants a little extra spending money, and a person with several children to support? How many people do you really think can survive on a wage of under $8/hr?

    Dems don’t support a $15-20/hr minimum wage because to do so would expose the fallacy of the minimum wage as a method of raising living standards. It’s a political sham brought up by Dems in election years to demagogue the issue. It’s tiresome that even a liberal who understands basic economics, as I think you do, will pretend to support an idea that you know violates the rules of supply and demand.

    “Wanna hear me sing my “alvin” impression next Sunday?”

    Commentby Roger Rabbit— 7/20/06@ 4:13 pm

    Good retort; I’ll be listening.

  69. 70

    65 – Here’s a fact: you haven’t settled the bet you lost to Goldy.

    Until then – GTFO…

  70. 71

    Wow I barely got through the “blame Clinton” comments before I was compelled to write.

    First IF that is true, they why has a ReTHUGian controlled congress refused to index the minimum wage to inflation? Clinton probabally knew that the one time raise was all he could get through at the time wasn’t Lott a Senator and didn’t the ReTHUGians control the House?

    Also whatever happened to the “Contrat with America” that swept them into power? Can it be that somehow the ReTHUGians can’t pass what they promised the people without total 100% control of every seat (kinda like Sadaam had in Iraq?)

    Some people will blame Clinton for everything, except of course when there is good news, then its Bush’s tax cuts that are responsible.

  71. 72

    #12,
    Quit saying that Dave Reichert caught the Green River Killer. He did not. Please read Ann Rule’s book on the case. Dave Reichert did not think that Ridgeway was the killer. He opposed the idea of a search warrent for his house and his dna. He thought going after Ridgeway was a waste of time. Reichert thought the GRK would have to be a smart, well educated person. As if it takes a great deal of brians to killer youbg ladies that are willing to get into your truck and house late at night. But if Reichert had his way and was in charge in 1987 Ridgeway would still be free and still be killing today.

    Commentby BigGlen— 7/20/06@ 2:35 pm

    I agree. Reichert actually HAD the GRK and let him go free. Many more innocent people were killed by that wingnut because of Reichert’s mistake. I just think of that as another example of how incompent the guy really is.

  72. 73

    Leftist 68 – One of “us” would be someone who is educated, and wise to the real ways of the world. We understand economics, science, math and business and a myriad of other subjects. We have jobs where we Produce something of value to the world.

    We also know that librulism is a foolish ideology practiced by The Takers.

  73. 74

    Sure is hot today. Why is that?

    1) Because it is sunny out.
    2) Because I drove my luxury SUV 75 miles today.

    Pick one. Let me know…

  74. 75

    This, of course, is exactly my point – Congress’ refusal to raise the minimum wage means taxpayers pay more for all of the things listed above.

    Comment by Roger Rabbit— 7/20/06@ 4:27 pm

    Roger get a union card and your wages will increase. The government only spends more of what you earn. When you trim the government spending everyone gets a pay raise. Roger go chew on a soggy carrot and stay out of the streets. The Mayor will run over your funny bunny body with his battery powered SUV.

  77. 78

    It is strange that all the righties here support a lifelong government leech on the taxpayers over a contributor from the private sector.

    Hypocrites!

  78. 79

    Janet S.:

    What standard of knowing someone is required to elect someone? I mean, how well do we really know Dave Reichert? As he’s demonstrated over and over again, what he says and how he votes change all the time, so we can’t know his position on any issue: it might change again tomorrow. Perhaps one of his interns will cry on his shoulder, and he’ll change his mind about abortion next. Because he’s voted both ways on drilling in the Arctic, on stem cells, on troop benefits…

    And by the way, you must have had a really tough childhood being called “Janet” given that you have a dick.

  79. 80

    Sure is hot today. Why is that?

    1) Because it is sunny out.
    2) Because I drove my luxury SUV 75 miles today.

    Pick one. Let me know…

    Commentby Mark The Redneck Kennedy— 7/20/06@ 6:22 pm

    Mark, I truly hope it’s a Hummer as the damage you would do MommaEarth with that despicable little Prius or it’s hybrid brother wannabe’s is abominable.

  80. 81

    “ Now here’s a catchy slogan for the next Save the Earth campaign: Have you hugged a Hummer today? “

  81. 82

    Proud leftist got it wrong: ““Independent Democrat” is an oxymoron. The current Democratic leadership does not permit real variance from the party line. Ever since George Soros, Michael Moore and Kos took center stage for the Democrats has independent thought been stifled. Look at Joe Lieberman. The moonbats are out in force going gonzos to kill his political career. Occasional forays from the party line are permitted when no adverse consequences will result and such might help with electoral prospects. Democrats are the American Moonbats, Pariahs of the common man. In any event, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are intellectually incapable of independent thought even if such a phenomenon were permitted by their party leaders. The girls just ain’t very smart.

    Look at anyone who goes against the abortion line. They are shut out of the Democratic conventions.
    Revised Commentary

  82. 83

    Only pussies drive luxury SUV. suck it up and be a man go buy a ford at lest girlie MAN MARK

  83. 84

    When Janet S starts telling you that she knows how you think, it’s time to wonder if she’s into that NSA spying thing. Maybe she’s making sure her kids won’t be called upon to fight in the war she allegedly supports.

  85. 86

    we need to round up all these republican woman and force inseminate them to save the snow flak embryos it’s the only way to be sure the evil liberals don’t get them !!!!

  86. 87

    Didn’t read the article, did you socialist, you earth hating, pollution exporting, tree hugging hypocrite?

  87. 88

    No, conservative women are the only ones HAVING babies.. the liberals are killing theirs or selling their eggs to the highest bidding factory.

  89. 90

    Puddy – We know that libruls have cornered the market on intolerance and hate. They won’t even consider our views, and SAS won’t consider the views of anyone who wanders off the librul plantation or refuses to drink the librul kool aid. If yer not a gullible koolaid drinker, you can’t be a current librul.

  90. 91

    No, conservative women are the only ones HAVING babies.. the liberals are killing theirs or selling their eggs to the highest bidding factory.

    Well I would think that would make you happy.

  91. 92

    HCYBPRTAAK – Wow… libruls driving hybrids are actually hurting mommy erf. I don’t drive a Hummer, but I wish I did.

  92. 93

    Mrk, you need to change your name to ‘Mark, I hugged my Hummer today and Saved the earth Kennedy’

  94. 95

    Goldy refers to One Term’s “conservative base”. Sorry, One Term has no base. None. If I’m not in it, it doesn’t exist…

  97. 98

    MTR Kennedy: You have to consider the source for every librul comment made here!

  98. 99

    Reichert has a long career in law enforcement, was appointed as sheriff, was voted in as sheriff, before winning the election as rep for the 8th against a well known talk show host.

    It is tough to make a mark as a freshman in congress. (Just ask Maria how hard it is to accomplish anything in your first term, although she has had three times as long.) Reichert got on the committees he wanted, and even got a chairmanship of a subcommittee. I guess we can throw all that out for someone new, but why?

    If Darcy is elected, who is going to mentor her? Most likely she will be in the minority. McDermott is a huge back bencher, so that is no help. I guess Inslee could show her the ropes, but even he will have limits on how much he wants to babysit. So, as a state, we would lose one more voice. But at least she will do whatever she is told. I just hope she doesn’t cry the first time someone is mean to her.

  99. 100

    99 – More lies dripping with venom. I mean how dare she exercise her right as a citizen to rise to the call of public service? How dare she out fund raise a incumbent?

    The Washington delegation is majority Democrat with experienced operators like Norm Dicks. She’s smart. She’ll do just fine. And her party just may be in the majority come November.

    Next?

  100. 101

    Most likely, if Darcy is elected, she will NOT be in the minority. Pull your head out. She may be one of the first proud votes cast for impeachment.

  101. 102

    Fred @ 79: Janet S has been repeating that tired line for months now . . . and any time someone offers thoughtful responses she ignores them.

    On issues with partisan overtones it is pretty much impossible to have a nuanced discussion with Janet S because of her well-trained inability to engage viewpoints different from her own. Yet she whines like a school girl when folks ridicule her crass propagandizing.

    Janet hasn’t figured out that credibility must be earned. She has failed miserably to earn it. That’s not because of her ideological predilections, but because she comes across as a partisan hack rather than an honest discussant.

  103. 104

    65

    “Rabbit and Clueless obviously choose not to debate me on facts. ‘Cause I kick their asses every time.”

    In your dreams, Mark. Only in your wet dreams …

  105. 106

    66

    Mark, here’s a suggestion for ya good buddy — instead of hating all women because your dead crack-whore ex-wife took you for

    F I V E H U N D R E D T H O U S A N D D O L L A R S

    … why don’t you hate just your dead crack-whore ex-wife?

    (pause)
    (rabbit snickering noises)

    HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
    HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
    HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

  106. 107

    Okay, I ignored Fred because of the childish ending to his post. But if it will make you happy:

    I guess you want it both ways. If Reichert goes the party line, he is a rubber stamp. If he considers his views, and then explains to his constituents when those views change, he is an unknown quantity. If he changed his votes without explanation, this would be valid. But if he explains it, at least you know how he is thinking. Seems to me you need to give him credit for thinking on his feet.

    What bothers me with darcy isn’t that she changes her mind, it is that she is a complete unknown. Yes, isn’t America wonderful that anyone can run for office. And isn’t it wonderful that bloggers can back a total unknown and give her lots of exposure that helps her in fund raising. But that doesn’t translate into votes in the 8th district.

  107. 108

    Reichert is way out of his league: he lacks the intellectual skills and depth of knowledge requisite for the job. But, he’s a useful tool for the GOP leadership and the “Leadership” PACs have contributed generously. To wit, each of these have forked over $10K each to Reichert’s campaign coffers:
    America’s Majority Trust
    Americans for a Republican Majority
    Committee for the Preservation of Capitalism
    Every Republican is Crucial PAC
    Keep Our Majority PAC
    Majority Initiative-Keep Electing Republicans
    Promoting Republicans You Can Elect
    Rely on Your Beliefs

  108. 109

    Duh, you are right Dr E. With all these terrorist being blown away in….Duh…. Beirut there will be a lack of medical faci…… Duh what was I saying. Oh yeah vote for me.

  109. 110

    Thank youi, Janet S for once again repeating what is clearly a key Reichert talking point. Care to guess how many times you’ve said that over the last few months? Care to guess how many times folks have responded to that and you’ve ignored them, regardless of how civil and thoughtful their response?

    Admit it — you don’t care what the response is. All you want to do is insert the talking point at every juncture. That’s Propaganda 101. Repetition breeds acceptance.

    You do your job well.

  110. 111

    By the way, I’ve got a question for all the righties around here. I need help in understanding the following:

    If liberals are “America haters” or “anti-American”, then conservatives must be American lovers and/or “American” (in the sense of “true” Americans, not “anti-Americans”). That being the case, conservatives should have an utmost respect and admiration for the writings and philosophical positions of the founders of the republic. Can you demonstrate that it is conservative philosophical ideas — not liberal ones — that inspired and motivated the founders? It shouldn’t be hard to do, just give us examples from Jefferson, Franklin, or others that prove irrefutably that conservatism was at the heart of the revolutionary movement, as well as in the philosophical tenets that guided the founding of this nation as evidence, for example, in the founding documents. These examples, in embracing true conservatism, would also demonstrate the disdain, if not revulsion, that these individuals would have felt for liberal ideas as embodied, for example, by the French.

    Please help me out here – I’m really trying to understand the conservative mindset. Prove to me that it cannot be based entirely on ignorance.

  111. 112

    Well if Darcy is to do as she’s told, it’s certainly no different than RubberStampReichert who calles the Nazi- HQ for his marching orders from Field Marshall Rover each day. And those committees? Well since the Dems are going to take back Congress, Sheriff Davie won’t be in a position to have any influence on committees. So if its influence you want, vote Dem!

    And for someone who pretends that Darcy won’t be effective, Janet S spends a great deal of her time addressing the 8th District race. Is that the race your bosses at the BIAW and GOP HQ want you to shill for the most Janet S?

  112. 113

    And for someone who can’t even VOTE for darcy (WHO???) NoLeftbrainandmissinghisLeftnut spends a great deal of ITS time addressing the same race. Is that the race your thug bosses at union hall, the abortion clinic and Korrupt County Greater Felon and Illegal Voter Association want you to shill for most NoLeftbrainandmissinghisLeftnut? Or are you so smitten (perhaps unrequitedly, perhaps not) with goldstein you simply drool back anything he utters?

    I wonder, can you even find your way to the 8th district?

  113. 114

    I guess I can’t win here, Green Thumb. Reichert changes his position today on stem cell research, and goes out there and explains it. How is this the same old story? It seems to me that the right is much more thoughtful and nuanced about this than the left. At least the right discusses it, and respects the views of the other side. The left just demonizes those who disagree with the party line. The veto override failed, but the repubs split their vote. Guess that kind of disproves the rubber stamp theory.

    Left Turn, can you at least give a coherent arguement? And explain to me how you know that darcy will be effective. Seems to me that every post you make just reinforces my view that darcy is a complete unknown. Yes, I keep addressing the 8th district, because that is where I live and vote. What is your excuse?

  114. 115

    On second though, don’t bother to even TRY to find your way to the 8th… we don’t want your kind around…

  115. 116

    My doctoral dissertation chair is a classic conservative. His writings have long focused on the importance of the founding fathers’ emphasis on Madisonian checks and balances. These checks and balances are key to the relative longevity of the U.S. constitution because they have provided powerful protection against any one faction obtaining too much control of government and abusing that power (e.g., by performing a coup).

    I disagree with my chair on many things, but I do think his point is worth thinking about — particularly in the current context of one-party government. As I see it, the key problem with the federal government today is that the checks and balances have seriously eroded as the presidency has accumulated unprecedented power. When Congress and the courts largely act as a rubber stamp for executive decisions, that opens the door to incompetence and outright corruption.

    From this philosophical standpoint you could argue that it is very “American” for the Democrats to regain control of at least one house of Congress so that a measure of balance is restored to the federal government. This could serve to elevate debate about the great issues of our day and provide mechanisms (e.g., through congressional hearings) to hold the executive branch to greater public scrutiny than has been possible under Republican leadership.

    In other words, a conservative “strict constructionist” could be strongly in favor of the Republicans losing the 2006 elections.

  116. 117

    On a recent trip to Washington, D.C., my brother-in-law overheard a dumbass liberal named NoLeftbrainandmissinghisLeftnut pointing out a well-known building to himself…. “Yo, dude You see that triangular-shaped octagon over there? That’s the Pentagon.”

    ***

    NoLeftbrainandmissinghisLeftnut philosophizes and ponders the complexities of life really well too… “I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I don’t even pretend to know all the questions. Hey look, a Milk Dud!”

  117. 118

    114 – Oh are you trying to “win” here Janet? What does it mean to “win”?

    At least the right discusses it, and respects the views of the other side.

    That’s a complete lie. Demonization by the right was practiced before the New Deal. The right never forgave Teddy Roosevelt for trust-busting and regulation although they loved his foreign policy.

    The demonization continues today with the “mighty wurlitzer” of the right-wing noise machine of which you apparently are an active part.

    Reichert could lose. That’s why you’re so relentless on Darcy. Dirty job but someone has to do it I guess.

  118. 119

    Darcy (WHO???) brings NOTHING to the table. She’s fluff in a warm (presumably warm… although how warm is up for question considering she neglects her child so often and willingly) body. She has not come to the district (I know fluff, it’s so hard to carve time for the little people when you have those donors to woo in San Fran), she has given donors, er, voters platitudes rather than plans or new ideas and outside the nutroots section of liberal blog heaven she is an unknown lightweight, hence, when you talk to people in the 8th and ask about darcy the most predictable answer is darcy WHO???.

    At least that nut (and election LOSER) Dave Ross had some name recognition.

  119. 120

    The lack of checks and balances have had the greatest affect at the spending level. Congress has no breaks on the process, and so has been playing the earmark process to the hilt. Bush should have called them on it, but never did. He also should have vetoed mcCain-Feingold, but was relying on the Supremes to do it for him. A gutless decision, and the courts didn’t do his dirty work for him.

    Bush has dictated the terms of debate on the foreign policy level, but Congress has dominated on the spending level. Grudgingly, I have to concede that the repubs have not handled one party rule very well. They have succumbed like all others, and given in on bringing home the bacon.

    Unfortunately, if we turn congress over to the dems, spending will increase, not decrease. Taxes will increase to partially cover it, but economic theory being what it is, won’t cover it completely. An increase in taxes will result in a decrease in revenue. The deficit will increase under a dem congress. Maybe not in the short term, but it will in the longer term.

    What we need is truly conservative govt where the feds only involve themselves in what is necessary – national defense, things like that. Subsidies to farmers and education are two areas that the feds should not be doing, but can’t help themselves.

    The biggest fear is that the dems will be given a power in the war on terrorism. Maybe if they don’t have to fight the battle of rhetoric, they will actually take it seriously. Otherwise, their positions seem to lack seriousness. At least the dems voted overwhelmingly to support Israel today.

  120. 121

    At least the dems voted overwhelmingly to support Israel today. -Commentby Janet S— 7/20/06@ 10:44 pm

    That must have set Terry Kerry’s teeth on edge… I bet the Heinz manse is NOT a happy home tonite…

    Kerry and Hezbollah–II
    In September 2004, there was a huge gathering of anti-American, anti-Israeli organizations in Beirut to attend a conference entitled “Where Next For The Global Anti-War And Anti-Globalization Movements? An International Strategy Meeting.” The resulting manifesto, simultaneously turgid and strident, has as its primary goal attacking the U.S. war in Iraq. It’s secondary goal is to challenge Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian lands. It’s a nasty document, with a decidedly anti-American tone. What makes it interesting today is the identity of one of the organizations playing host to all these anti-American Leftist organizations: Hezbollah (identified on the last page as one of the Local Welcoming Committees). . . .

    One of the participants from the United States was a group called United for Peace and Justice. Ordinarily, this would just be one of the icky little anti-American groups that America produces, along the lines of Code Pink : Women for Peace (which also attended this little American and Israel hatefest). What distinguishes United for Peace and Justice is that Teresa Kerry funds it. So, in 2004, a couple of months before Americans decided whether to put John Kerry in the White House, his wife’s money was being used to fund one of the participants in a virulently anti-American meeting held in Beirut and hosted by Hezbollah. Once again, we have reason to be grateful that American voters put their money on George Bush.

    To be clear, the money trail from Mrs. Kerry* to UPJ goes through several steps: her family foundation gives money to something called the Tides Foundation, which in turn gives to UPJ.

    * The outspoken ketchup heiress and philanthropist, whose second (and current) husband by the way served in Vietnam for four months.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:59 p.m. EDT
    Heinz Kerry-Funded Web Site Praises Hezbollah

    A Web site partially funded by Teresa Heinz Kerry offers a report glorifying Hezbollah (Hizbullah) suicide bombers as “deified in paradise and venerated on earth for fighting Israel” – and praises the terrorist group’s support network for women widowed by their husband’s “martyrdom” attacks.

    Women’s eNews.org still features the September 2003 report, written by Sarah Smiles, who’s identified as a “WeNews correspondent.”

    Smiles interviewed a number of Lebanese women who were widowed after their husbands decided to join in the cause of killing Israelis and Americans.

    At the end of her screed, the Web site notes:

    “Women’s eNews is supported by our readers; reprints and licensing fees; and the Fund for the City of New York, the Teresa and H. John Heinz III fund of the Heinz Family Foundations, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, The Helena Rubinstein Foundation, the Sister Fund, the Starry Night Fund.”

  121. 122

    oh wait.

    Didn’t goldstein, who publicly heralds his jewishness, support that jew killing supporter Kerry?

  122. 123

    116

    It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that the two political parties changed roles. They did it in the time of Lincoln (well, with the establishment of the Republican party to restore to the nation the principles of Jefferson that the Democratic party by that time had corrupted itself away from) and then again in the Guilded Age, et cetera. To that I would add, however, that it seems to me that a political system with only two parties is really (as my European colleagues are often wont to say) only one party better than a one party system. I also think we need to get money in the form of private financing of campaigns the hell out of politics, but that’s another matter entirely.

  123. 124

    dr e – public financing of campaigns means that someone in govt gets to decide who gets the financing. That’s why I oppose McCain-Feingold. There should be no limit to financing, but 100% disclosure of where the funds came from. If all your money comes from George Soros or from Rev Sun Myung Moon, the voter just needs to know. Then they can make an informed decision.

    Money is the life of politics. If you are viable, you will attract money. If not, you won’t. I don’t want the govt financing tilts at windmills.

  124. 125

    members of the wingnut propaganda spewing, flying monkey right on HA.org: Puddybud, J. Craig Herman, klake the flake, bet-welshing redneck, DOOFUS, MWS Sucks and ASS.

    I just scroll past their noise.

  125. 126

    howcanyoubePROUDtobeaKennedyandanASS: While Cluesless passes by your post, I didn’t know the ketchup queen pays for a web site that supports islamofascists. Typical donkville move!

  126. 127

    That’s real good aptly-named-clueless… keep scrolling past us and keep listening to your own choir singing back the words you want to hear. Really, that is just the most intelligent way to know your opponent, to further discussion {snicker…well not at H’ASS} and to ultimately be engaged in reality.

  127. 128

    Janet, there is one extremely powerful democratic concept that people forget: the People create the government and thus, in theory, at least, the government are under our control. This is my understanding of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, a government of, by and for the People. With that in mind, I don’t see why it should fundamentally be a problem with having someone in the government making decisions about such financing. That is, in part, the idea of a constitutionally limited democracy (i.e. a republic) in any event. Nevertheless, a government that truly is of, by and for the People should be beholden to those same People, and if those People find that the “deciders” don’t give a rat’s ass about what the People think, then the People should reclaim the government from such usurpation.

    So, in my view, although I think that 100% disclosure in campaign financing as it stands now is essential, the fact that some parties are able to contribute substantially more to political campaigns and thereby buy influence corrupts the process by limiting universal and equal access to the legislative process. It also has the negative side effect that “marginal” candidates who aren’t able to raise substantial sums are most likely relegated to vanity campaigns.

  128. 129

    Dr E, you are making the exact arguement against what your purport to believe here… in one breathe you claim the party currently in control is hated, corrupt, etc blah, blah, blah, blah… then with the next breath you claim to want government solely in control of political contributions.

    Can you not imagine how loudly you will be crowing if that comes to pass while the GOP is still the majority party in all branches of government?

    Conversely, can you not imagine how loudly we would howl if by some stretch of the imagination Hillary got a modicum of control..again?

  129. 130

    129

    It’s really not that hard to understand if your read what I actually wrote. I did not anywhwere way that I wanted “government solely in control of political contributions.” I want no such thing. Personally, I’d like to see an end to political contributions, as it all too easily has become a pay-for-access scam.

    Now, what I did say was that there shouldn’t inherently be a problem with the government making decisions about campaign financing if in fact the government is truly responsive to the people, as it should be. But, a system that rewards access to the highest bidder is not truly responsive to the people, but rather to the bidders—that’s where I have the problem.

  130. 131

    Dr. E @ 123:

    It seems like one of the more prominent themes of progressive thinking in the U.S. has long been the destruction of the two-party system. I’m no fan of it myself, but I’ve read enough history to be wary of pie-eyed attempts to create viable third parties. There would need to be an earth-shaking change in the political landscape for third parties to have more than a fleeting impact.

    It’s really interesting to have this discussion with local greens. They seem so fixated on creating a party that — at least in my mind — they often lose sight of the outcomes they hope to achieve. For example, if their goal were to gain passage of certain types of legislation by electing “progressives,” then isn’t it often much easier to work within the Democratic (and perhaps even the moderate-to-liberal wing of the Republican) Party to get them elected rather than marginalizing themselves with official Green Party candidates who are all but guaranteed to win no more than 20 percent of the vote?

    Perhaps it comes down an existential question: Are the greens more interested in creating a comfortable little debating club, or to actually win elections and pass the kind of wide-ranging policies that were the hallmark of the Progressive Era?

    I’m in the latter camp. Yes, Dr. E, we need to do something about the way money impacts elections. Substantive legislation will not be passed until we elect a critical mass of people who are not beholden to monied interests (RE: chicken — meet egg). The rise of net-based fundraising could make that possible in ways that were pure pipe dreams only five years ago.

    So I have hope. But it is not hope grounded in parties per se. I don’t have a visceral hatred of Republicans, e.g., in a quiet way I consider Sam Reed to be a contemporary “progressive” because of his long-time championing of local good-government initiatives that were often hotly opposed by both the Democratic and Republican Party establishment.

    In short, we would have more potential allies if we didn’t insist upon a rigid ideological litmus test (what might be called “toxic single-issueitis”). Governing is the art of building coalitions to accomplish the art of the possible. Once upon a time the radical right didn’t know how to do that (think Barry Goldwater). Now we progressives need to “re-learn” this lesson as well, partly by studying the great political battles of the Progressive and New Deal eras.

    History matters.

  131. 132

    Well damn Green , here you are making sense and me agreeing with you!

    Regarding campaign financing… I say let ‘er rip ang get the cash from whomever is willing to donate it… however… with a great big set in stone proviso of full and complete disclosure… if Bill Gates wants to give darcy $100 million – go for it, Bill! But damned well have it well documented and fully disclosed so we the voters can decide if we beleive she’ll be beholden to him for it.

  133. 134

    #111: “Please help me out here – I’m really trying to understand the conservative mindset. Prove to me that it cannot be based entirely on ignorance.”

    Can’t be done, Doc. There’s ample evidence of that right here.

  134. 135

    “Money is the life of politics.”

    Not exactly, Janet S. The life of politics is cutting up the pie. You are simply asserting that those who have the most money are entitled to decide where the pie is sliced.

    Your assumption is an abomination.

  135. 136

    Janet @33–“We have no idea how she reacts in unscripted moments”

    I listened to Burner two weeks ago on Weekday on KUOW. She was on instead of Reichert who’d changed his schedule at the last minute. She did just fine–answered questions from callers and spoke without a script for a whole hour. I’d love to listen to Reichert do this too,if he’d only agree to be on the show.

  137. 138

    No wonder Janet Shithead is so clueless. She doesn’t undersand the basic argument that once the Dems are in charge, her boy RubberStampReichert won’t have the same committee assignments. THIS is how republican candidates get elected. They rely on morons that vote for them not to understand the basics of government.

  139. 140

    Another blow to the Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott wing of the GOP! The voting rights act passes! Man the righties are getting their ass kicked every day lately and that’s while they hold all the cards. Just think of the kind of whipping we’ll give em when we win back one of the Houses!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13958766/

  142. 143

    calling Balter independent is like calling Goldy polite and well mannered.

    Yipes, she’s a dyed in the wool liberal, what else could she do? Supporting F’arcy is a no-brainer if you are a lefty.

  143. 144

    Janet S:

    You claim that Burner is a “complete unknown”, but she has made it clear from the beginning of her campaign what her positions are. Her biographical details are available for everyone to see. She goes on the radio, speaks in public (in the 8th District several times a week every week), and answers questions. It’s pretty clear who she is.

    Your problem with her is that you don’t agree with her. Which is your prerogative, but which is completely different than not knowing enough about her.

    What do we know about Reichert? He was the sheriff. Great, Burner was a manager at Microsoft. He’s a Republican. Great, Burner is a Democrat. His positions are… changing daily, depending on which way the wind blows. Her positions are on her website and haven’t changed since she begun this, are consistent with what she’s said publicly, and generally have some substance behind them.

    You know as much about Burner as you know about Reichert, so stop attacking the strawman. You don’t agree with her positions. So attack them.

  144. 145

    145 – Well stated. This election is a referendum on corruption. Reichert has rubber-stamped that corrupt agenda. He votes moderate when he’s allowed by the corrupt leadership.

    He’s an empty suit.

  145. 146

    Janet S. . .

    Do you have anything to contribute to this blog beyond “what’s she done?” You fail to make any points whatsoever for your side by the tiresome and repetitive “what’s she done” rant.

    I’m surprised anybody even responds.

    You have a dearth of interesting or even relevant comments.

  146. 147

    127 – ASS – the “reality” is that you spew lies. Whatever “feels” good you copy and paste it.

    I leave it to others to pick apart your nonsense.

  147. 148

    Now wait a minute, Janet Shithead has indeed made some points. For a while she tried the “A woman’s place is in the home argument” proving that the GOP is out of step, out of touch and sexist! See, she made a point!

  148. 149

    124.

    Money is the life of politics. If you are viable, you will attract money. If not, you won’t. I don’t want the govt financing tilts at windmills.

    Exactly the point I made about Darcy’s fund raising success when the qtr. was announced.

    So, get on with telling us how we are wrong about Dave, because Darcy has the most imporotant quality any candidate needs, money.

  149. 150

    Good point, Left Turn. Janet obviously represents the well-to-do soceity matron’s point of view. Darcy is new money and not to be trusted. I wonder if Janet has a slight crush on the handsome sheriff?

  150. 151

    124 – Janet betrays her monarchical ties with every post. The “little people” should know their place and allow the wiser rich people to take care of government. Public funding is not in the best interests of the aristocracy. Oh madame, we’ll come for you first when the revolution begins.

  151. 152

    thumb@131

    You bring up some very important and intriguing points. My views are, of course, predicated on having lived a number of years in Europe in parliamentary democracies, where inter-party coalition building is often necessary. It seems to me, however, that with our system of governance we need to achieve what at times could be a very tricky sense of balance. For instance, given a two-party system, those parties need to be different enough in ideology as to engender the need for compromise within the system, yet at the same time there needs to be condition of allowing the opposition to function as such, rather than assigning it to a place as an impotent nuisance.

    I suppose that, assuming a truly educated electorate (which we don’t really have in this country) and politicians who were truly responsive to their constituents, there would probably be enough variance within each party as to make the need for a third party largely superfluous. There certainly isn’t that kind of variance within the GOP at the moment. Within the ranks of the left, there is too much variance, as you rightly point out, with factions allowing their single-issue hobby horses to ride themselves into the ground. Yet at the same time there do arise single issues around which the left should be mobilizing, such as ending the Iraqi occupation immediately (and, I would add, bringing the war criminals to justice). This, for me, is the great failing of the left right now: the inability to mobilize its ranks around such a crucial issue, especially when that issue need not pass an ideological litmus test—instead, we would rather be acknowledging that we are a nation of laws to which we must abide.

  152. 153

    Now about Dave, when he was the same age as Darcy, he was on the Green River Task Force. He was pursuing a person that he was sure was the culprit. While he was trying to frame a Tacoma cab driver, Gary Ridgeway killed about 20 more women.

    Darcy, at about the same age, completed a very successful transformation of Microsoft development strategy, that Steve Balmer, President of Microsoft said he had “bet the company on”.

    Microsoft’s bet turned out much better than the King County Sheriff’s bet on Dave.

    Concerning educational background, I am sure that Dave’s alma mater, Concordia Lutheran College, is a great place for as less than All America footballer to get a diploma. Darcy, however, has gone to one of the pre-eminent colleges in the world and got straight A’s in a year of familiarizing herself with the law at UW.

    So, accomplishments at 35 favor Darcy by a long margin, and aside from running a sheriff’s department poorly and taking orders from John Boehnert, Dave didn’t do much for the next twenty years.

    I’ll take the young promising filly over the worn out, also ran stud.

  153. 154

    Oh Harry . . . give up. Janet will just respond with the same tired rant: “but she has no resume: what has she ever done is government? But she couldn’t hack law school . . . ”

    Trying to reason with Janet is futile. She is a typical conservative and is inflexible, has outmoded ideas of class mobility, and spins and omits information when it suits her. Expecting Janet and her ilk to actually think is a waste of time

  154. 155

    WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE THE LATESY LIBERAL BITCH IN THE 8TH DISTRICT? DOES SHE ACTUALLY KNOW THE 8TH EXTENDS BEYOND HER BACKYARD IN CARNATION BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE SEATTLE OR SAN FRANCISCO?

    Do you get the point yet non-8th district morons?

    She needs to get her lazy liberal ass out of Seattle and out of her liberal comfort zone(union hack in Renton with the liberal Mayor Kathy Keolker- Wheeler) and actually speak to the constitutents of the 8th.

    ONE MORE TIME when asking folks in the 8th about what do you think of darcy the answer is invariably “Darcy who???

    Do you get the point yet non-8th district morons?

  155. 156

    156.

    She needs to… speak to the constitutents of the 8th.

    You mean like these?

    July 22, Reception with Congressman Mike Honda at South Bellevue Community Center.

    July 15, Maple Valley Meet & Greet

    July 8th, Doorbelling for Darcy (she actually goes)

    Spend 4th of July with Darcy in Carnation, Auburn and Bellevue

    No, Ass, you don’t get the point. Darcy is out and about in the 8th. Reichert is the one who’s a no show (except for the cameras on 7/4).

  156. 157

    And don’t bother with the “hard work” (wingnuts think anything but clearing brush is hard work) in DC bit. He coulda missed everything this month. He’s hiding in DC.

  157. 158

    Mike Honda: D
    Katy Keolker-Wheeler: D

    ‘Meetings’ with folks within her political comfort zone don’t amount to much. When is she going to talk to voters that are NOT her natural followers?

    Once again, the answer to the question amongst the 8th constituents is darcy who???

  158. 159

    And you know Turtle… whoop de damned do… you gleaned that info from her cute little website…. (btw, wouldn’t you imagine someone who was a big bad exec at Microsoft could come up with something a bit more slick than she has??)

    She’d actually have to have name recognition for people to want to go to her website and maybe find out where she’ll possibly show up.

    darcy who????

  159. 160

    159

    You don’t really expect her to appear with Republicans, do you.

    If so, please name for me the Democrats who appear at Reichert gatherings.

    As for Darcy who, the of the people I know in the 8th, none is going to vote for Reichert. The folks I have spoken to lately about this include: A very successful real estate agent, a manager at Microsoft (who thinks being the Project Manager of .Net was a very big deal), a system architect for a well known .com, a tech writer for a computer manufacturer, a Boeing sys admin, a mechanic who worked on my car, a bus driver, and a fingerprint technician for the county.

    They know a lot about Dave, and the don’t like it.

  160. 161

    Also, Ass, you complaint was that Darcy was holed up in Carnation and only appeared in Seattle. That just isn’t so.

    Don’t be afraid to go just because Democrats will be there. Believe me, you’ll have a lot easier time getting into a Democratic event than I would getting into a Republican one.

  161. 162

    Exactly the point turtle: YOU are talking to a few libs and darcy who??? is talking to a few libs…

    Once again, outside the nutroots blogosphere… darcy who???

  162. 163

    163.

    Wrong again, none of those people could be considered part of the “netroots”. They are just people who are aware.

    But, don’t think that we locals in the netroots won’t be helping Darcy in person. Local Dems are energized for her candidacy.

  163. 164

    But, back to the subject. How is it that Dave is so “independent”/ The people I know don’t think so.

  164. 165

    Of course the people you “know” don’t think so! The people you surround yourself with are nutroots like yourself!

    Ask yourself about the general angst the conservative base has about their party, and ask yourself what part Dave played in it when he voted against our principles.

    The problem you have, the problem the nutroots have and the problem darcy WHO?? has is that our angst won’t translate into suddenly changing our stripes.

    Really, can you imagine a conservative saying to himself “Gee my party’s candidate is not conservative enough… I think I’ll vote liberal.”? Um…no! Nor can I imagine the reverse.

    It would be like saying “Gee, my dog sure stinks when he’s wet… I’m going to get a skunk instead.”

  165. 166

    I thought your district was mixed . . . and I do know conservatives who are jumping parties because they’ve had enough. Some going libertarian; a few coming our way. You are better at throwing stones than researching your facts or making analytical judgments.

    Proud to be Stupid: You are mostly white noise . . .

  166. 167

    166

    Do you really think changing your stripes is what it’s about? Do you think the Democrats are going to renounce science to get your vote, and those who think as you do?

    Your point of view is definitely not the moderate one Darcy is targeting.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.