(Apparently, Dan noticed the empty page first.)
Search Results for: Dave Reichert
Does Dave Reichert trust the President?
Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
So four years into a preemptive occupation that has seen US casualties escalate as Iraq descends into a bloody civil war, it is interesting to explore how Congressman Dave Reichert’s position has evolved in response to changing conditions on the ground:
“I support the troops and the president’s decision to go to war in Iraq.”
— Seattle Times, 10/22/04“Reichert says the invasion of Iraq is part of the broader war, and he would back the invasion again, even with information now showing there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
— Seattle Times, 10/22/04On national security, Congressman Reichert says, “I put my trust in the president.” — KCTS Connects, 1/8/06
“I would have voted to go to war with the majority of Congress and support the president’s decision. After September 11th we were attacked and people must remember that. We are at war! We are at war!”
— Speech to Seattle City Club, 1/23/06“And what I do is that when you ask me, as a sheriff, should there be a timeline? It is clear to me: no.”
— Speech to Seattle City Club, 1/23/06“I see us being in Iraq for a while.”
— Speech to Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, 8/16/06
Hmm. With Bush administration officials preparing the American people for a 50-year military presence in Iraq, it is time to ask Congressman Dave Reichert if he still puts his trust in the president, and if he too supports a permanent presence in Iraq?
8th District voters need to know if a vote for Reichert is a vote for insanity.
Dave Reichert needs help
Apparently, the following help wanted ad has been circulating Congressional listservs and DC employment pages for weeks, so in my usual bipartisan spirit, I thought I’d just pass it along.
Press Secretary — Congressman Dave Reichert seeks experienced communications professional to manage, coordinate and implement all facets of the member’s daily and strategic communications operations. Works with and maintains contact with local and national press outlets, drafts press releases, talking points, op-eds, newsletters and supplemental materials. Will also oversee and update electronic, internet and other communications, including an aggressive Franked Mail program. Successful candidate will be a strong writer, team player, a self-starter, creative and strategic thinker as well as have campaign experience. Please send resume, cover letter and writing samples to kimberly.cadena@mail.house.gov . No phone calls, faxes, or drop-offs please.
“Aggressive Franked Mail program”… talk about an understatement. And don’t forget, “campaign experience” is required, because of course, congressional staffers are completely prohibited from, um, participating in campaign activities on the taxpayers’ dime. Or, whatever.
Dave Reichert’s fiscal con
One of the Democrats’ first moves Friday after taking control of the US House was to pass a package of rules and ethics reforms aimed at addressing political corruption and reigning in our massive federal deficit. All six Democratic members of Washington’s delegation voted for the rule changes. All three WA Republicans voted against them.
And one of the highest profile changes was to re-adopt a stringent “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) budget rule that requires lawmakers to offset any new spending on entitlements, or any new tax cuts. Such a rule was in place during much of the 1990’s, during a time when President Clinton led the nation from record deficits to record surpluses, and actually started paying off the national debt. Deficits later exploded and the national debt mushroomed to $8.6 trillion under President Bush after Republicans suspended PAYGO.
Rep. Dave Reichert, who campaigns as a “fiscal conservative,” vehemently opposes PAYGO:
“I will vote against it because it raises taxes,” Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said in a telephone interview. “The easiest fix is always to raise taxes.”
Uh-huh. If you ask me, the politically easy move has always been to cut taxes, which is how we got into this mess in the first place. Republicans are concerned that the new rule will make it harder to renew Bush’s tax cuts, most of which expire in 2010… and most of which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Given the choice between true fiscal conservatism and paying back the GOP’s corporatist patrons, Reichert has clearly chosen the latter. And who pays for this choice? Rep. Brian Baird explains:
“We want to get the budget under control and we need to look at entitlements and revenue,” he said. “Does Dave Reichert really want to sit down with my 22-month-old boys or his grandkids and tell them they owe $8.6 billion?”
Of course, that’s what it comes down to — somebody’s got to pay for this generation’s deficit spending, and if it’s up to Reichert and the Republicans, the cost is going to fall on the shoulders of the next generation.
We’re not talking about discretionary spending. We’re not talking about investments in infrastructure or education or R&D. We’re not talking about national defense. We’re not even talking about the automatic cost-of-living increases mandated in programs like Medicare and Social Security.
PAYGO only applies to new entitlement spending (like when Medicare’s prescription drug program was implemented) and new tax cuts. Under PAYGO any new tax cut or entitlement would have to be offset by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. It’s Balanced Budgeting 101. You know… common sense.
Yet Reichert apparently thinks we can still balance the budget using, you know… magic.
“But the way to reduce the deficit is to rein in federal spending and cut taxes, which has proven to increase revenues,” Reichert said.
Yeah, just like it was proven under Ronald Reagan and George Bush II — the two administrations that oversaw the largest expansions in the national debt in US history. That’s supply-side economics, or as Bush I famously called it during his 1980 presidential campaign, “Voodoo Economics.”
Reichert claims to be a moderate. He claims to be fiscally responsible. But when push comes to shove he unblinkingly repeats the Republican mantra and votes to protect tax cuts at all costs.
Hmm. I’d love to see where his buddies on the Seattle Times editorial board fall on PAYGO?
Dave Reichert: “unconscionable dependent”
From the National Review online:
As for the horserace, multiple GOP sources say that the contest for Min Leader isn’t much of a contest at all. They say current Maj Leader John Boehner has solid backing in the conference and will win with ease this Friday morning when the secret ballots are cast. Many acknowledge that there is a hunger for change after last Tuesday’s losses, but they say RSC chair/Rep. Mike Pence (R., Ind.) is not a popular alternative. Few give Energy & Commerce Committee chair Joe Barton (R., Tex.) much of a shot, though he could pick up backing from fellow Texans and members of his committee.Holed up in his Capitol office, Boehner is devoting his time to member contacts, not media appearances. Key Boehner allies in the effort include Rep’s Pat Tiberi (R., Ohio), Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), and Dave Reichert (R., Wash.).
So… Reichert has quickly emerged as a “key ally” of Boehner and the corrupt, K Street-controlled, Republican establishment. That didn’t take long.
So much for Reichert’s alleged “conscience-driven independent” streak. (The Seattle Times’ new motto: “All the news that fits our way of thinking.”)
Dave Reichert’s Pyrrhic victory
Darcy Burner called Dave Reichert last night to concede the 8th CD race, and apart from Darcy and her family there are few people more disappointed than I am. As Dino Rossi’s most ardent supporters know, it can be terribly frustrating to come so close to an upset victory and lose.
About his victory, Reichert claims that “the key is listening, and being in touch with the community…” yet I’m not so sure he really heard a word voters were saying:
“I am a little surprised it was as tough as it was, because of the inexperience of my opponent,” Reichert said. “The national environment played significantly higher role, and had more of an impact, than I expected it to play.”
What a dick. Totally incapable of any type of introspection.
In a district that has never sent a Democrat to Congress, Reichert nearly lost to an unknown political novice, and he blames it solely on the national climate. He couldn’t even find the grace to bring himself to give Darcy some credit without accusing her of being “nasty.”
But you wanna know the real reason why Reichert won? All you need to do is read this morning’s paper:
Reichert, a former King County sheriff known for helping to capture the Green River Killer…
That’s the main reason why Darcy didn’t trounce Reichert in King County… a lot of people voted for the beloved sheriff who caught the Green River killer. Of course, Reichert didn’t really catch the Green River killer — in fact, he so fucked up the investigation that Gary Ridgeway was allowed to continue to kill for 18 years after he first became a suspect. And the fact that most voters don’t know this…? Well… I blame the media.
And I also blame myself.
No doubt us bloggers played a huge role in building the buzz that led the media and political establishment to recognize Darcy as a viable candidate, but we failed to do the one thing that would have assured her victory: tear Reichert down. Both campaigns were typically negative, and neither was particularly nasty by modern standards. The main difference was, Darcy attacked Reichert on the issues and on his allegiance to President Bush, whereas Reichert attempted to diminish Darcy as a person.
The Seattle Times editorial board’s self-righteous bullshit aside, the truth is, this campaign just wasn’t negative enough. If voters understood the truth about Reichert’s job as sheriff, and about the way he bungled the Green River killer investigation, and then claimed all the credit for himself two decades and dozens of dead women later… Darcy would have won. And with the local media mostly unwilling to reexamine the hero myth they created around Reichert, that type of truth telling fell on the shoulders of us bloggers. And in that, we failed.
That’s one of the two unfortunate lessons I’ve learned from this race. 1) Don’t be afraid to go medieval on a candidate’s ass, if that’s what it takes to win. And 2) the Seattle Times editorial board cannot be trusted to truthfully represent and promote the interests of our community.
I intend to address both these issues in the future.
But… as personally disappointed as I am with the apparent outcome of this race, I fully understand on an intellectual level that both Darcy’s and Peter Goldmark’s campaigns were an integral part of a HUGE victory for the Democratic Party… and particularly for us netroots activists who embraced the 50-state strategy first enunciated by DNC chair Howard Dean. Darcy and Peter threw themselves into races the political and media establishment considered GOP gimmes, forcing the Republicans to draw money and resources away from races elsewhere.
And by fielding hardworking candidates who ran tough campaigns in races everybody expected them to lose, the Democrats showed local voters the type of respect that is absolutely necessary for the party to build towards victory in the future. Whoever the Democratic nominees are in 2008, their races will be made incredibly easier by the hard work Darcy and Peter put into 2006. That’s why I come away from this election with absolute confidence that every last ounce of passion and effort the netroots put into these races, and every last dime we raised, was totally worth it. We helped the Democrats take back Congress, and that after all, was the ultimate prize. The GOP may have successfully defended these seats — this year — but at a great cost.
And so to those in my comment threads who seek solace by mocking me over Darcy’s loss, I ask you: How are you enjoying that Democratic majority in the US House and US Senate, or our near super-majority in the Washington state Legislature? What role did you play in losing three Supreme Court races, and all three statewide initiatives? And hey… how about Mike McGavick’s twenty-point loss to the Dem’s “most vulnerable” Senate incumbent? If all you have to celebrate from last week’s election is the thought that Darcy and Peter and a handful of bloggers might be having a bad day, well then, you really have nothing to celebrate at all.
The truth is, we didn’t get behind Darcy and Peter because we thought they would win, we threw our all into these races because we thought they could win, and because we knew with absolute certainty that making these races close would help other Democrats win elsewhere. And on both counts we were proven right.
Did we shoot for the moon? You betcha. But then, to quote Jack Kennedy:
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
And so to all of you who volunteered for Darcy and Peter, and who contributed money through my Act Blue page or elsewhere, I want to thank you for a job well done. We may have lost these two races, but overall, we kicked ass, and you all deserve credit.
Now let’s get back to work.
Dave Reichert: liar or asshole?
Of course, the headline is a trick question, for it turns out Rep. Dave Reichert is both a liar and an asshole.
A few days back when I first posted on the Issaquah school bus driver who got fired for flipping off President Bush, I focused on the assholish side to Reichert’s personality… the fact that he’s so proud of his role in getting the driver fired that he made the incident a part of his stump speech. I wrote:
Flip off the President, lose your livelihood. That’s justice in Dave Reichert’s America, and shows you what a mean, sanctimonious, vengeful S.O.B. he can really be.
What could be more assholic than bragging about getting some poor bus driver canned for dissing the President? Hmm. How about fabricating your role in the entire incident?
In a bungled attempt at damage control, Reichert has recently attempted to minimize his role in the firing, telling KIRO-TV that he called the Issaquah superintendent a week after the incident happened because it was “bothering him.” But as David Postman reveals this morning, that’s not what Reichert told a crowd in August. Speaking at the King County Republican picnic, Reichert boasted about getting the driver fired:
And as the motorcade went by, the President and I drove by on I-5, the President was having a great time. He was waving at everybody, he waved at the kids. He got the biggest kick out of the kids leaning out the window to say hello to the President of the United States.
The sad part of it is though, we got to the last bus — and I won’t tell you which school district this was — the bus driver flipped the President off.
So the very next day, you know what I did? I called the superintendent of that school district and that bus driver no longer works for that school.
After raucous applause, Reichert told the crowd:
That’s the old sheriff part of me still around.
Really… cheering over somebody losing their job. What a bunch of assholes. (And if that really was “the old sheriff” part of Reichert, you’d think it would’ve taken 18 years for the driver to be fired.)
So Reichert tells a cheering crowd in August that he called the superintendent the “very next day”, but when the story blows up in his face he tells KIRO-TV that he waited a week to call. One way or the other, he’s lying.
And according to Michael in Postman’s comment thread, Reichert actually heard about the incident from a “school district insider,” prompting him to cook up his version as a stump speech crowd asshole pleaser.
So there you have it. If Dave Reichert really is such an asshole that his phone call led to the driver’s firing, then he lied to KIRO-TV in denying it. But if instead he lied on the stump, boasting about a role in a firing he didn’t really have… well, that just raises his assholosity to a whole new level.
Either way it doesn’t paint Reichert in a positive light. Unless of course, being a lying asshole is exactly the type of job experience you’re looking for in a congressman.
Dave Reichert and the First Amendment
From yesterday’s King County Journal:
Reichert rode with Bush in his motorcade when the president came to the Eastside in June to raise money for Reichert and the state Republican Party.
First, the procession roared along Interstate 5 and State Route 520 to get to the Medina mansion where the fundraiser was scheduled.
Stopped on an entrance to the freeway from I-90, students in several Issaquah School District buses crammed their faces against the windows and waved to the president’s motorcade. Bush waved back.
Bush was having a great time, Reichert told a group of veterans in Orting recently. At least until he came even with one of the bus drivers.
The president turned to Reichert and said the bus driver had flipped him off.
Later, Reichert called the school district. After an investigation, the 43-year-old bus driver was fired in early September.
You can argue all you want about the appropriateness of a school bus driver making an obscene gesture, and what kind of reprimand that might deserve, but the crystalizing point of this story is that a bus driver flipped off the President and in response Rep. Dave Reichert went out of his way to have her fired. In fact he’s so proud if it, he’s made the story part of his stump speech.
Flip off the President, lose your livelihood. That’s justice in Dave Reichert’s America, and shows you what a mean, sanctimonious, vengeful S.O.B. he can really be.
A vote for Reichert is a vote for a man who thinks you should lose your job if you disrespect President Bush.
UPDATE:
Hat tip to Aaron in the comment thread:
Dave Reichert: a Bush league Republican
The Republican House leadership has worked hard to help Rep. Dave Reichert craft an image as an independent moderate… an image he needs to maintain if he’s to have a hope of winning reelection in Washington’s moderate, independent-leaning 8th Congressional District. Indeed, Reichert publicly admitted as much:
“Back in Washington, there are lots of games played. […] Sometimes the leadership comes to me and says, “Dave, we want you to vote a certain way.” Now, they know I can do that over here, that I have to do that over here. In other districts, that’s not a problem, but here I have to be able to be very flexible in where I place my votes. […] That’s where I need to be in a fifty-fifty district.”
The fact is Reichert has never cast a single vote against the White House or the House leadership when it really mattered, and now Karl Rove is rewarding him for his loyalty by sending President Bush on a rare visit to campaign for a House Republican in his home district. On Friday, the President will appear at high-donor fundraiser in Medina, where he expects to raise over half a million dollars on behalf of Reichert. And if the media does its job explaining the context of this visit, it should come at a political price.
Make no mistake: President Bush is making an extraordinary effort on behalf of the 8th CD’s freshman congressman because he knows that Reichert is a reliable vote. And Reichert is welcoming Bush into his district because he is a staunch supporter of the President and his policies.
As November approaches, the Republicans will attempt to localize the election by trying to make it a race between the silver-haired sheriff and an unknown, untested newcomer. But voters need to understand that this race in this district is about whether we want to leave our nation’s future in the hands of President Bush and the GOP leadership, unchecked and unbalanced. A couple weeks ago Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told a local audience that the Democrats cannot take back the House without winning WA-08.
If you had any doubt that Reichert is little more than just one more rubber stamp in our Republican controlled rubber stamp Congress, President Bush’s visit Friday should put it to rest. Reichert is as loyal a Republican as they come.
President Bush’s visit also makes one other important statement about this race: that it is incredibly tight and that Republicans are incredibly worried. Few GOP candidates are willing to appear with such an unpopular President, but well… Reichert desperately needs the money. Darcy Burner shocked both the GOP and the Democratic establishment by outraising the incumbent in the first quarter, and Reichert needs a huge second quarter to reassure his base. The President’s visit will do that for him.
Rather than despair, Democrats are turning lemons into lemonade. The Burner campaign is asking you to give as much as you can in the days before and after Bush’s visit, to help offset Reichert’s presidential-visit cash advantage. The campaign has set an ambitious $75,000 goal, and I urge you to contribute directly. The campaign has set up a special donation page where you can track the progress.
I also urge you to share your voice. A rally will be held Friday at Westlake Center, starting at 11:15 AM. President Bush’s very public embrace of Reichert is big news, and we want to give the media every reason to cover it.
Dave Reichert once again fails on homeland security
Local Republicans have made much hay about Rep. Dave Reichert’s plum assignment as chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology. A lot of good it’s done us:
Washington state and the Seattle area will receive less federal homeland-security funding this year than last, a decrease that mirrors a nationwide drop in counterterrorism spending.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced $1.7 billion in grants to states and urban areas Wednesday, including $32.2 million for Washington state overall and $9.2 million specifically for the Seattle area, which includes King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. In recent years a portion of the state grants also has gone to the Seattle area.
The state total amounts to a 23 percent reduction from last year, while the Seattle area decrease is 22 percent. Nationally, homeland-security grants were down by about the same percentage.
[…]
Security money is decreasing because Congress’ will to fund emergency preparedness is fading after the Sept. 11 attacks, said Eric Holdeman, director of emergency management for King County. Federal spending is also hampered by huge increases in spending for the Iraq war, Holdeman said.
The Seattle area should have received more because it is near the Canadian border and has a port, ferry system, high name-recognition and danger of earthquakes, he said. “I actually thought we would rank higher.”
Thanks Dave, for your powerful leadership on this issue… leadership that has earned Congress a failing grade from 9/11 commissioners on your willingness to implement its recommendations.
Dave Reichert: “Crony of the Week”
Congratulations to Rep. Dave Reichert for being named the GOP Crony of the Week. The honor was bestowed on Reichert by the DCCC in recognition of his pandering to special interests, and close ties with disgraced members of the corrupt GOP establishment. For example….
- Rep. Reichert voted against cracking down on the oil and gas industries price gouging.
- Rep. Reichert voted for the GOP energy bill that gave billions to oil, gas and nuclear industries.
- Big oil and gas industries have given Rep. Reichert $42,166. Any surprise?
- Reichert received $15,000 from House Majority Leader John Boehner’s “Freedom Project” PAC.
- Reichert received $20,000 from GOP Whip Roy Blunt’s “Rely on Your Beliefs” PAC.
- Reichert voted with President Bush 86% of the time.
- Reichert voted the GOP party line 88% of the time.
- $20,000 from Tom DeLay’s ARMPAC.
- $5,000 from Bob Ney, the first congressman to be implicated based on the Jack Abramoff guilty plea.
- $1,000 from Duke Cunningham’s PAC.
- Voted to weaken House ethics rules when DeLay proposed doing so as GOP Majority Leader.
- Voted with Tom DeLay 91% of the time (through 3/31/2006)
And much, much more.
Reichert tries to sell himself as an independent-minded moderate, but when you look at his record, he’s about as Republican as they come. No wonder Dick Cheney comes out here to campaign for him.
Poll shows Darcy Burner can beat Dave Reichert
Darcy Burner is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican Dave Reichert in WA’s 8th Congressional District, and while you may not yet know her name, a recent poll shows that she can win:
In the 8th, 69% of likely voters said that they disapproved of the current Republican-controlled Congress.
64% disapproved of the Bush administration. And only 34% would vote to re-elect Reichert. (To give you a sense: a normal number for a first-term incumbent would be in the low fifties.)
Furthermore, while likely voters in the 8th would choose Reichert over a generic Democratic candidate 45% to 21%, when presented with just a little information about me, they choose me at 41% to Reichert’s 31%.
Read (and recommend) Darcy’s diary on Daily Kos for more information.
Staffers cover for “Doubting Dave” Reichert on global warming
Over on Slog, Eli Sanders has been holding Rep. Dave Reichert’s feet to the fire (here and here) over the congressman’s flexuous ramblings on the subject of global warming. First “Doubting Dave” told the Seattle Times that he questions the existence of global warming:
“The problem is, you have some scientists who say it’s happening, and some who say it’s not happening. The problem is the Sierra Club says that every scientist says it is,” said Reichert, a member of the House Science Committee.
“I’m going to wait until all the facts are in. There were many scientists who used to say the world was flat.”
Um, actually, scientists never said the world was flat. Only anti-scientific, religious nutcases did. But I digress.
Reichert said global warming is a “possibility” but views the science with the same sense of skepticism he held as a homicide detective for the King County Sheriff’s Office.
“I will be convinced when I’m convinced,” he said. “As an investigator, I’ve not been conclusively convinced.”
Uh-huh. Just like the skepticism Reichert showed when he had the Green River Killer in custody, but let him go, only to nab him again a decade or so later when the Sheriff was “conclusively convinced” by the DNA evidence.
But wait… I’m not being fair to Reichert, because according to his folks, the papers got it all wrong! In fact, the papers got it so wrong that “Reichert campaign spokeswoman” Kimberly Cadena actually called up Sanders to ask for an interview, so she could set the record straight, informing Sanders that he read something into the Times piece that simply wasn’t there:
Reichert has never questioned the existence of global warming. […] He continues to investigate the cause of global warming. Global warming exists. That’s the reality.
That’s right, and I’m sure Reichert will eventually finger the perpetrator, oh, saaaaay, sometime around the year 2024… or maybe not until the Cascade snowpack runs dry and the Southcenter Mall lies under six feet of water?
Look, we all know that Reichert’s not the brightest bulb in the GOP caucus (and from recent events, that’s saying something) so we expect him to say stupid things he doesn’t really mean… to say in public. But if I was Sanders I’d be little insulted by Cadena, who clearly doesn’t respect him as a reporter. What… did she think? Sanders would just accept that explanation and print a retraction? No, he did exactly what you’d expect a self-respecting journalist to do… he asked Times reporter Jonathan Martin to clarify exactly what he asked the congressman, and exactly what the congressman answered. Martin said he asked a two-part question: does Reichert believe global warming exists, and if so, what does he believe is causing it?
I tried to be as clear as possible in asking the question in a two-part way. It’s possible he may have misunderstood the essence of my questions, but I went back on the issue with him at least twice during our interview. His position on global warming was crystal clear to me. He just hadn’t been convinced of its existence. I think that’s what the article says. […] He said the existence of global warming, and human’s role in it, was a possibility, but that he hadn’t seen conclusive evidence to satisfy him on either of the questions.
Hmm. Not really a position you want to take in such an environmentally conscious district like the 8th. Which I suppose is why Reichert staffers stopped letting him speak on the issue, instead sending in Cadena to do damage control. What this tells me is that Reichert’s folks don’t have much faith in their candidate’s ability to accurately explicate his own stance on the issue. (Or perhaps, maybe they’re afraid he will.) You know… they think he’s stupid. Or wrong. Or both.
But the Times’ David Postman is more charitable. He gives the campaign brownie points for aggressively pursuing this:
Good on Cadena, too, for making the effort with Sanders. The Stranger isn’t necessarily a friendly place for Reichert, and others might not have bothered.
Hmm. Only thing is, there’s something that both Postman and Sanders have missed. Cadena isn’t Reichert’s campaign spokesperson. She’s his Congressional office press secretary. (At least she was a couple of days ago.) And to have an office staffer doing campaign work like this is a real ethical and legal no-no.
And while I suppose it’s possible that by the time Cadena contacted Sanders she had taken a leave from the office and officially joined the campaign, that doesn’t excuse the press release she posted to Reichert’s congressional website “in response to media reports.”
To me, that’s a pretty damn clear use of a government website for campaign purposes. Though if I’ve got it wrong, I invite Cadena to give me a call and clear things up.
UPDATE:
In the comment thread, Cadena clarifies:
I’m pleased to clarify, David. I took a leave of absence from Congressman Reichert’s congressional office beginning on Saturday, September 30th. As of Tuesday, October 3rd, I officially assumed the role of campaign spokesperson on Congressman Reichert’s reelection campaign. The press was notified of the change. I hope that clarifies any question you had, David.
Kimberly Cadena
Spokesperson for the Reelect Dave Reichert Campaign
Thanks for being such an avid reader, Cadena. I suppose I should have asked her directly, but the campaign has been so unresponsive to my queries in the past that thought didn’t even occur to me. And like I said, it still doesn’t explain the press release.
And by the way, when campaigns shake up their staff just five weeks before an election, it’s usually an indicator that they’re a little nervous. I’m just saying.
Ignoring science, Reichert, Hastings, Herrera Beutler, and McMorris Rodgers vote to kill women
Yesterday, Washington state’s Republican delegation joined the House Republicans and voted in favor of a bill that would severely restrict women’s access to safe and legal abortions. Bill H.R. 1797 goes under the Orwellian title “Pain-capable unborn child protection act.”
The bill goes to some lengths to argue that the fetus (referred to in wingnut-speak as “unborn child”) feels pain by “no later than 20 weeks after fertilization.” The claim is scientifically dubious. Recent reviews conducted by bona fide scientists (rather than, you know, wingnuts) cast doubt on this assertion.
For example, in a recent review article, Bellieni and Buonocore (2012, Journal of Maternal, Fetal, and Neonatal Medicine 25:1203–1208) weigh the anatomical, endocrinological, behavioral, and electrophysiological evidence. They cautiously conclude:
Our data show that there is consistent evidence of the possibility for the fetus to experience pain in the third trimester, and this evidence is weaker before this date and null in the first half of pregnancy.
Less ambiguity was found in a 2010 “Working Party” report by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists titled “Fetal Awareness”. Their conclusions are rather concrete. From the summary…
In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation. After 24 weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks such that noxious stimuli in newborn preterm infants produce cortical responses. Such connections to the cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient, as experience of external stimuli requires consciousness. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemical environment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observation highlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties of extrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus.
These recent reviews summarize the broad scientific literature relying on hundreds of previous scientific studies and empirical observations that weigh in on all sides of the argument. The House Republicans relied on cherry picking a handful of papers that favor their position. They come to a “scientific conclusion” for the bill using amateur methods unworthy of an undergraduate term paper, let alone a House bill!
The bill prohibits abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization, and provides limited exceptions:
- To “save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury…not including psychological or emotional conditions.”
- If “the pregnancy is the result of rape,” but only “if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency“
- If “the pregnancy is the result of incest against a minor” but only “if the incest against a minor has been reported at any time prior to the abortion“
The scientific record is clear on another aspect of abortion: “Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws”. The more restrictive the laws, the higher the rates of abortion-related maternal mortality.
The World Health Organization estimates that there are about 20 million unsafe abortions annually. The practice result in about 68,000 unnecessary deaths to women, and an additional 5 million women who suffer long-term health complications from the unsafe practices. The public health consequences of anti-abortion laws are profound.
Republicans, by voting for Bill H.R. 1797, have ignored (in fact, abused) science, and have voted, essentially, to kill women.
And I am sad to see that Washington state’s G.O.P. delegation, Dave Reichert, “Doc” Hastings, Jamie Herrera Beutler, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, all voted in favor of killing women.
Death is a pretty harsh punishment for unintentionally getting pregnant…particularly for women who were too embarrassed to report a rape, or girls too ashamed to report incest.
You know what…It’s time to get rid of these puritanical women-killing fucking troglodytes!
More on Reichert’s role
The Seattle Times has more on Rep. Dave Reichert’s (R-WA-8) role in the Petraeus affair.
Humphries took Kelley’s concerns to the FBI cybercrime division, but later was worried that the FBI was dragging its feet — possibly for political reasons — and took his worries to U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert.
My read: Shortly before a presidential election, a renegade FBI agent is annoyed with how slowly the FBI is investigating the incumbent President’s CIA Director. He decides to leak information about the investigation in a way that might affect the election.
Reichert is duped into playing the intermediary. Rather than taking the disgruntled FBI agent to the House leadership (you know, the leadership position as defined in the Constitution), Reichert connects the man with Eric Cantor, who is the G.O.P. leader.
Clearly, this was an attempted political hit. But, Cantor isn’t as stupid as Reichert, and decided to not meddle in the investigation.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 34
- Next Page »