Rep. Reichert… time to prove me wrong

Today is the national Parade of Reason organized by Fuse and other progressive organizations, in which thousands of Americans will stop by their Congressperson’s local office and drop off a small memento illustrating their personal reasons for urging Congress to act now on climate change. You can get more information and find your local Congressional office here.

Oil and coal interests did some real damage to the climate change bill in committee, but there are still a lot of good provisions left, and… well… we gotta start somewhere, and soon. We all know Rep. Jay Inslee is a driving force on this and other environmental issues, but most of the rest  of the Western Washington delegation appears to be standing on the sideline. That’s why we need to urge Jim McDermott, Brian Baird, Adam Smith and Rick Larsen to get behind this bill now, help strengthen it on the floor, and get it passed when it comes up for a vote in a couple weeks.

And then there’s Rep. Dave Reichert.

Reichert likes to portray himself as moderate. The Seattle Times likes to portray him as a moderate. And faced with two tough, well financed challenges from Darcy Burner, Reichert occasionally found himself last session pushed into a few moderate votes, if only to save his own skin in November.

Of course, I’ve always insisted Reichert’s alleged “conscience driven independence” is a fraud, his votes against the party line always coming after the conclusion was foregone, and only after consistently opposing the measure in numerous procedural votes. So here’s his chance to prove me wrong.

Indeed, not only does Reichert have the chance to cast one of the only Republican votes for this legislation, he has the unparalleled opportunity to be the lone Republican getting out in front of this bill and leading the way. He and his handlers must know that climate change legislation has overwhelming support in his district—a pro-environment, hydro-powered district less economically dependent on fossil fuels than nearly any in the nation—so if he really wants to prove his moderation and independence (not to mention his legislative competence), now’s the time to show a little leadership and help shepherd this important piece of legislation through Congress.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Comments

  1. 1

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reichert take the lead in preserving the planet for small children and rabbits? Ya gotta be kidding! He couldn’t run a homeowners association.

  2. 2

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Why doesn’t Cathy McMorris-Rodgers quit Congress and stay home with her toddler? She’s a bad mom! DSHS should investigate her for potential child neglect.

  3. 5

    correctnotright spews:

    Reichert leading something….you have to be kidding. Reichert puts up the false moderate front and votes with the rightwingnuts when it counts.

    Hypocrites don’t lead they obfuscate.

  4. 7

    IAFF FIREMAN spews:

    Didn’t Reichert prove you wrong when he won against Marcy, TWICE? Or when he expanded his margin of win TWICE? Or when he got the firefighters endorsement TWICE? Seems like Reichert proves you wrong more often than you are right anyways.

  5. 8

    spews:

    IAFF “FIREMAN” @ 7,

    “Didn’t Reichert prove you wrong when he won against Marcy, TWICE?”

    Illogical. Winning an election isn’t “proof” of anything except winning an election. Barely winning an election against a political newcomer suggests that Reichert would do well to please his constituents–even if it means breaking rank with the Wingnuts.

    “Or when he expanded his margin of win TWICE?”

    This is factually incorrect. Reichert won by a 4.8% margin in 2004. His margin then shrunk to 2.62% in 2006, and expanded (for the first time) to 5.56% in 2008.

    “Or when he got the firefighters endorsement TWICE?”

    So? Who gives a flying fuck about the firefighters’ endorsement?

    “Seems like Reichert proves you wrong more often than you are right anyways.”

    Again…you seem to misunderstand the concept of “proof.”

  6. 9

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    7, 8 — It doesn’t take much to “prove” something to a wingnut. If it’s what they want to believe, that’s “proof” enough for them; and if it isn’t, no amount of proof (e.g., overwhelming scientific evidence of human-caused global warming) will satisfy them. In their upside-down Alice-in-Wonderland world, faith and proof are the same things.

  7. 10

    Daddy Love spews:

    If he doesn’t, then all of his previous attempts to “greenwash” himself will be all shot to shit. I can see the ads now.

  8. 11

    Daddy Love spews:

    @7

    How about YOU try to “prove” Darryl wrong? Come on, it must be easy, right? Even you could do it, surely.

    “Prove:”
    Put forward an argument that supports your assertion, makes logical sense (i.e. is not a logical fallacy: read up first), and is supported by relevant and verifiable facts.

  9. 12

    Right Stuff spews:

    “Oil and coal interests did some real damage to the climate change bill in committee, but there are still a lot of good provisions left”

    Oh?, I thought the Democrats were going to change all of that…Well, not so much….

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/2008voteratings

    click the centrists and see what you get? That’s right..DR is a centrist…

    Of course, the HA faithful are so FARRRRRRR left, that anyone who is a proven centrist looks like an extremist.

  10. 13

    spews:

    Sorry, you can’t expect Deputy Dave to ‘do the right thing’ if he doesn’t get the memo on what to do.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him legislate.

  11. 15

    Danno spews:

    Well, after having spent as much time (read: none) as the general public reading or paying any attention to HA (capitals as a convenience only, absent the slightest respect) over the last several months, it appears that Goldy and RR and the rest of you moonbats remain as irrelevant as ever. The same 3 or 4 inconsiquential posters making no sensible arguments. Losers, all. The giant pendulum is clearly slowing, you know (fear) what is next….

  12. 16

    kirk91 spews:

    Where’s the criticism of Inslee and McDermott for not going against their party and voting ‘no’ on the supplemental war spending bill? They have much safer seats than Reichert and were cowed by the Democratic leadership into taking a position against their ‘principles’.
    The problem with Congress is a lack of principled leaders from both sides of the aisle or rather that there is no other side to the side that favors corporations and the US empire over everything else.

  13. 18

    Rujax! spews:

    17. Carl the Truth spews:

    When will Darcy the Diddler just go away?

    06/20/2009 at 11:20 am

    When will the mighty “carl” choke on his own vomit…