Search Results for: Reichert

This is huge… simply HUGE!

The official second quarter results are in and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner reports $590,561 in contributions compared to GOP incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert’s $569,077.

What with a nearly unprecedented presidential visit and numerous other high profile fundraisers, I had just assumed Reichert would significantly outraise Burner in the second quarter, and to be honest, I was all prepared to spin a good second-place showing by Burner into a rhetorical victory. Now that I don’t have to, I’m virtually speechless.

And once again Burner spent less to raise more, closing the all important cash-on-hand gap to about $340,000. Burner now sits on $770,000 in reserves compared to Reichert’s $1.11 million.

This was Burner’s most impressive fundraising quarter to date, and according to the DCCC her $1.13 million total thus far puts her in the top fundraising tier for Democratic House challengers nationwide.

“Our momentum continues to grow,” commented Zach Silk, Campaign Manager. “We benefit from both incredible local support and national recognition that this is one of the strongest challenger campaigns in the country.”

It certainly is. The Republicans pulled out all the fundraising stops in the second quarter and Burner still beat Reichert’s totals. Money is all about getting your message out, and if Burner can remain financially competitive she can beat Reichert in November.

This remains one of the hottest House races in the nation.

UPDATE:
I’ve just cross-posted (somewhat) to Daily Kos. Please recommend so that we can get Burner’s impressive accomplishment as much national recognition as possible.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
N in Seattle, not quite so tongue-tied as me today, points out in the comment thread over on Daily Kos how truly pathetic Reichert’s fundraising performance really is. Reichert had claimed that “hundreds” of donors attended last month’s $1000.00/plate snack with President Bush, but…

Even if the “several hundred” attendees described by the King County Journal was a mere 200 at $1K apiece, a very large proportion of Reichert’s 2Q total came from that one event. And his absence of other funding resources might, in fact, be even more striking — Daniel K, referring to […] the P-I, indicates that attendance at the Bu$h event was more like 400.

Along with his other inabilities, apparently Dave Reichert can’t raise money unless he has the big boys around to hold his hand.

I’m not sure what line in Reichert’s report accounts for the money raised that day — perhaps the 239,880.03 of “transfers from other authorized committees?” But he only shows $186,388.29 in total contributions from individuals for the quarter compared with $418,627.89 for Burner.

That’s a tiny number for an incumbent in a closely contested House race, and it either suggests a surprising lack of support from rank and file Republicans or a stunning inability to raise money. Perhaps Reichert is waiting for the DNA evidence to come in before capturing his base?

I’ve been hitting Rep. Dave Reichert pretty hard on his uncompromising opposition to raising the federal minimum wage, which at $5.15/hour now sits at a 50-year low, adjusted for inflation. So I thought it only fair to ask the Congressman to explain his position.

I didn’t get a direct quote from Reichert, but his press secretary Kimberly Cadena was kind enough to respond. She wrote:

Congressman Reichert voted no because he believes that minimum wage should be dictated by economic indicators and state and local governments, not the federal government. That principle works successfully in Washington State, which has one of the highest minimum wage rates in the country, higher than the current federal minimum wage rate. Even if the proposed federal minimum wage increase had passed, Washington State’s minimum wage rate is still higher than the proposed increase.

Hmm. This seems to indicate that Reichert supports Washington state’s minimum wage, but opposes one nationally. Yet this not only puts Reichert in the uncomfortable position of denying to other Americans the same benefits offered to his constituents at home, it also seems to put him at odds with the Washington State Republican Party’s own platform, whose section on “economic opportunity” includes:

Reforming the current Washington State minimum wage law to make Washington businesses more competitive.

So… if as Reichert (or at least, his press secretary) says, his principle on the minimum wage “works successfully in Washington State,” how exactly does one reform it to make WA businesses “more competitive?”

Here’s a suggestion: raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25/hour so that our businesses are on a more level playing field with those in neighboring states.

Barring that, Reichert is left in a kinda logical bind. If he claims that WA state’s nation-high minimum wage has not hurt the competitiveness of our state’s businesses, thus refuting the WSRP plank that calls for reform, he undermines the argument that raising the federal minimum wage would hurt the competitiveness of businesses nationwide. Yet if he supports the competitiveness premise of the plank, but refuses to level the playing field by raising the federal minimum wage, he’s really only left with one option: lowering WA’s minimum wage to bring it in line with other states — the lowest common denominator approach.

No doubt different states have different economic conditions and different costs of living, so if one believes in a minimum wage one can make a reasonable argument that it should vary somewhat from state to state. But we’re not talking about mandating anything close to a living wage here — even at $7.25 an hour a full time worker would earn well below the poverty line. The federal minimum wage is merely a floor below which the race to the bottom by low-wage employers can go no further. Like WA, other states can always set their minimum wage higher.

So I it leaves me wondering… does Reichert really support the concept of a minimum wage at all, or does he just assume it’s not such a big deal to his own constituents because they’re already covered via state initiative?

I just have a hard time understanding how the highest minimum wage in the nation “works successfully” here in WA state, yet raising it elsewhere would somehow hurt businesses and workers nationally. Perhaps Kimberly will explain further.

Yesterday I admonished Rep. Dave Reichert for repeatedly blocking a vote on raising the minimum wage, which at $5.15/hour is now mired at a 50-year low. (Although as far as I know he’s never objected to a Congressional pay raise.)

I implied that opposing a living minimum wage was simply a Republican Party value, but according to the National Journal’s Hotline this isn’t necessarily true of the party’s real “moderates”:

A group of 25 moderate House Republicans — most of them affiliated with the Northeast/Midwest-heavy GOP labor caucus — has penned a letter to Maj Leader John Boehner seeking a vote to increase the minimum wage before the August recess. The list of signees includes many of the House GOP Conference’s most vulnerable members: All three from CT, NY Rep’s John Sweeney and Jim Walsh, plus PA’ans Curt Weldon and Michael Fitzpatrick.

Hmm.

Reichert is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House. Vulnerable moderate Republicans are seeking a vote on raising the minimum wage. Yet Reichert is not amongst them.

So… is Dave Reichert a moderate?

UPDATE:
Hotline is quick with an update…

Looks like Boehner and Co released the Conference. By a margin of 260-159, the House this afternoon passed a non-binding “motion to instruct” procedure in support of upping the minimum wage to $7.25 per-hour. Though symbolic, the vote allows the vulnerable GOPers to point to an actual vote matching their promises. All the endangered GOPers on the letter voted ‘yea,’ as did Ney and Gerlach.

The vote also provides the Dems with a record of which GOPers voted ‘nay.’ Those opposing it, as Rahm surely scribbled down, included: Mike Sodrel (IN), Charlie Taylor (NC), Thelma Drake (VA), Dave Reichert (WA) and J.D. Hayworth (AZ).

So Reichert refuses to join vulnerable moderate Republicans in supporting a vote on the minimum wage. I suppose that just shows Reichert for what he really is: a vulnerable conservative.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
I just want to be clear about why this vote is so important. Vulnerable, moderate Republicans voted for the minimum wage, yet even when freed to vote his conscience, Reichert voted against it. That surely says something about Reichert’s conscience.

Nationally, the minimum wage has not been raised in over nine years — adjusted for inflation the current $5.15/hour is now at a half-century low. In 2006 a full time minimum wage worker will earn only $10,712, about $6,000 below the poverty line.

So of course today, self-proclaimed “moderate” Rep. Dave Reichert once again voted against raising the minimum wage, joining his party in blocking a vote on H.R. 2329 for the fifth time in a month. The bill would have raised the wage $2.10 an hour over two years, to a whopping $7.25… well below WA state’s minimum wage of $7.63/hour.

Here’s a fact: Dave Reichert is a Republican, and both nationally and locally the Republican Party opposes a living minimum wage. How can I be so sure? Well, apart from counting their votes, I can also read their platform:

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

According to 94.9 FM KUOW’s web page, Rep. Dave Reichert will be joining Weekday this morning at 9:00 AM to take questions from callers. But word is Reichert chickened out cancelled, and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner will take his place. (I’m hoping that’s a metaphor for the November election.)

Guess we’ll just have to tune in to see who shows up. Should be worth listening to either way.

UPDATE:
Darcy’s on. If you’re curious where she stands on an issue, give her a call: (800) 289-KUOW

It can be awfully difficult figuring out where your congressman stands on the issues, especially if your congressman is Rep. Dave Reichert. Partially it’s the rambling inarticulations he passes off as oratory, and partially it’s because he tends to avoid any forum where he may be forced to address complex issues unscripted.

So it comes as no surprise that Reichert’s campaign has just announced that he will be a no-show at next week’s “A Conversation With Your Congressman” (singular) hosted by the Washington State Alliance for Retired Americans. Both Reichert and Rep. Jay Inslee were invited to take questions on four issues: the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, offshore outsourcing of American jobs, the Employee Free Choice Act labor law reform, and the estate tax. Only Inslee will be there to provide answers.

It’s a shame really, because this sounds like it would have been a wonderful opportunity for constituents to engage their representatives on these important issues, in a relatively nonpartisan setting.

This is not intended to be a political debate. In fact, this forum very deliberately seeks to avoid that, which is why election opponents were not invited. Each issue will be briefly summarized by experts on that topic, audience members will describe their personal experiences on the issue, and the congressmen will explain their positions and answer audience questions.

The format is intended to create an opportunity for our elected U.S. Representatives to listen to their constituents’ concerns, describe where they stand on important issues in a clear and substantive way, and respond directly to citizens’ questions — all outside the politically charged environment of an election debate.

Ah well. But then, we all know that Reichert is a coward. Either he’s afraid that he won’t be able to answer the questions, or he’s afraid that voters won’t like what they hear if he somehow manages to articulate his positions without resorting to a meandering anecdote about the Green River Killer.

If those of you in the 8th District are curious as to what it’s like to be represented by a congressman who’s not afraid to be confronted by his own constituents, go watch Rep. Inslee in action next Thursday, July 6, 6:30 pm at the North Bellevue Community Center, 4063 148th AVE. NE. Or elect Darcy Burner and find out what it’s like to have a smart, articulate, courageous representative, every day of the week.

Looks like a pretty typical piece of campaign literature, huh? An oversized, glossy, folded pamphlet touting Rep. Dave Reichert’s reelection.

Only it’s not a piece of campaign literature, it’s a piece of congressional franking, paid for with our taxpayer dollars, and a clear violation of the spirit of the franking rules, if not the law itself. Oh… and it’s only one of six such mailings Reichert’s office has recently sent to voters.

Indeed, Reichert’s mailings have been raising eyebrows and filling mailboxes for months. At last night’s Drinking Liberally an experienced campaign staffer actually laughed when he saw the congressional seal on the pamphlet, while another knowledgeable politico rolled his eyes in disbelief. And this morning I corresponded with a longtime Republican consultant who confided that there’s a pretty blurry line between what is or is not a legitimate use of franking privilege, but that this one “crosses it by a mile.”

But it’s not just the content of Reichert’s mailings that pushes the limits of the franking rules. House members are prohibited from franking mass mailings to constituents within 90 days before an election; with a September 19 primary date, that means the last day this latest mailing should have been postmarked was Tuesday, June 20th. Yet this latest flyer didn’t start hitting mailboxes until Monday, June 26th.

Of course, presorted standard mailings like this can take over a week to go cross country, but since the cost is distance sensitive and the mailing was likely produced by local consultant Bruce Boram, chances are it was printed locally and mailed from the USPS’s Seattle Bulk Mail Center.

So the question is… when did this mailing drop? If it actually went out after June 20th, then Reichert broke the franking rules. Not exactly the kind of disregard for the law you’d expect from an ex-sheriff.

Hey… why’d they feed Slog the scoop? Oh, never mind, for the point is Darcy Burner has some poll numbers and it doesn’t look so good for Dave Reichert.

Reichert’s job performance rating stands at a paltry 39 percent, while his reelect numbers have wobbled down to 33 percent. And he does even worse with independents.

And if you Reichert supporters want to comfort yourselves by dismissing this as the distortion of a Democratic pollster, have at it, but you won’t be in very good company. A few weeks ago a local GOP insider confided that he’d be surprised if Reichert’s reelects were much above the mid-thirties, and Burner’s poll merely confirms his intuition.

One thing you’ll notice missing from the polling information posted on Slog is the result of a direct head-to-head. I suspect that would likely show Reichert with a lead, but it’s too early in the campaign for such a comparison to be meaningful. Burner has dramatically raised her name ID from 18 percent to 46 percent without the benefit of any paid media, but that’s still too low to get a solid read on where she stands with voters compared to Reichert.

So all in all this is good news for Burner, if not surprising. Reichert is vulnerable and Burner is surging. The 8th Congressional District is in play.

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.

Over on Slog, The Stranger’s Eli Sanders addresses the question of whether Rep. Dave Reichert truly is, or is not a moderate… and he allows Reichert to provide the answer in his own vague, rambling words.

Sanders links to video on TVW of Reichert addressing the Mainstream Republicans of Washington at their annual Cascade Conference last week in Sea-Tac. Speaking before a gathering of self-proclaimed moderate Republicans, Reichert curiously attempts to explain away his own voting record, by recounting a rambling anecdote about a conservative voter who complained about his alleged moderation:

Now, I said, “You know what sir, that would be a huge mistake, and here’s why.’ (I wanted to explain to this person how things work back in Washington, D.C., and why certain votes have to be taken.)

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. Because the big picture here is, keep this seat, keep the majority, keep the country moving forward with Republican ideals, especially on the budget, on protecting our troops, on protecting this country. Right? Being responsible with taxpayer dollars. All of those things. That’s the big picture. Not the vote I place on ANWAR that you may not agree with, or the vote that I place on protecting salmon.”

“Back in Washington, there are lots of games played…” Reichert informed his audience. As for the carefully crafted perception that he is moderate and independent? “That’s where I need to be in a 50-50 district.”

Uh-huh.

As one Republican elected official who was in the audience that day incredulously told me:

“Of course we understand that strategy… but you don’t come right out and say it in public!”

And on camera, no less. See what I mean when I say that even Reichert’s fellow Republicans think he’s an idiot?

My question then is, who is the bigger idiot? Reichert, who stupidly admits to the TV cameras that in an effort to help him look more independent, House leaders are telling him when he should or should not vote against them? Or our local editorialists who have been so reliably eager to congratulate Reichert every time he makes a show of breaking with the party line?

Reichert knows that his alleged “independent streak” is a stinking load of bullshit. His fellow Republicans know that this is a stinking load of bullshit. Only our local media seem to be oblivious to the stench of politics as usual.

Much of the myth of Reichert’s moderation and independence stems from a handful of strategic votes against his party’s leadership on bills whose passage or failure was pre-ordained. Indeed as Daniel Kirkdorffer studiously explains in his thorough analysis of Reichert’s voting record (an absolute must read for all serious journalists,) the overwhelming majority of Reichert’s allegedly moderate votes were entirely meaningless:

[Supporters] argue that Reichert has voted 55% of the time on the same side as the majority Democratic position. Problem is that almost half of those votes (206) were undisputed procedural votes, and hence meaningless when determining voting tendencies. Furthermore, his overall voting record has him voting 94% of the time with the majority Republican position.

So how do we really gauge a legislator’s voting record then? Well we do so by looking at the 389 votes where the parties took opposite positions, and we see where legislators stood on those votes.

As soon as we do that the first observation is that Reichert only voted 11.7% of the time on the same side as Democrats, but 88.3% of the time with his Republican colleagues.

However, the most important votes of all were generally the key votes on the passage of bills. 35 times since January 2005 the House has been at odds on these most important votes, and Reichert has only voted with the Democrats on two such occasions, which is just under 6% of the time.

Even in his stand against the despicable Terri Schiavo bill — for which he was loudly lauded by the local press — Reichert had little impact on the final 203-58 vote. Indeed, when the shit hits the fan as it did with ANWR, when he voted for drilling after voting against it, Reichert has always been a reliable vote when called upon by his party leaders. And he always will be.

That is what Reichert was laboriously trying to explain to his fellow Republicans last week. That is what his colleagues in the audience understood. And that is what our local media has an obligation to explain to voters.

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.

Right-wing news aggregator The Orb reports from the GOP State Convention in Yakima, and has some constructive criticism for Rep. Dave Reichert:

Dave Reichert, U.S. House Rep – He’s a good guy and my congressman, and I am going to vote for him. But I have hard time following him when he speaks. It’s not that he has a bad voice or comes off nervous or unsure of himself – it’s just that sometimes I can’t figure out what his point is. He mix and mingled 3 stories of WTO rioting, riding with Ron Sims in the towncar, and chasing down crooks that got filmed on TV… all to make the point that it’s import “to try”, and how that related to Reagan fighting the cold war. I don’t want too sound mean or picky because he’s a good man and has done a good job for the 8th district and is head and shoulders more qualified than ex-Microsoft executive product manager Darcy Burner, but in my opinion he needs to focus better when speaking to a crowd.

Of course, part of the problem could just be that Reichert simply isn’t all that bright. (At least, that’s what a number of people who know him tell me, Republicans included.) These rambling speeches, they’re not a result of lack of focus Orb – Reichert’s about as focused as he can get. No, they’re a result of a lack of intellect.

For example, did you know that Reichert once had the inside track on the Republican nomination for governor in 2004? The man with the shiny medals and shinier hair had the support of the party big-wigs all lined up. That is, until he appeared before a gathering of these very same mucky-mucks and delivered one of his trademark, higgledy-piggledy soliloquies, displaying an utter lack of knowledge of the duties of office, let alone the issues of the day. A stunned audience immediately started recruiting Dino Rossi.

Why do you think that when he ran for the nomination for the 8th CD, the usually disciplined state GOP atypically tolerated such a crowded and competitive primary, despite Reichert’s huge name ID advantage? Because party stalwarts like Luke Esser and Diane Tebelius had seen him speak before, and they couldn’t stomach nominating such an idiot.

And why do you think that Reichert staged his dramatic walkout from the candidate debates? Because the other guys hurt “The Sheriff’s” feelers? No… because his handlers knew that he would be overwhelmed even by the likes of Tebelius. (I’ve seen her work a courtroom, and I’m telling you, that’s a pretty low bar.)

You want Reichert to “focus better”…? If by that you mean stay carefully on script, well sure, that would help his campaign. But don’t kid yourself about who Reichert really is. That rambling, periphrastic mess you saw on stage in Yakima, well… that’s the real Dave Reichert. Support him if you want, but don’t pretend it has anything to do with competence or intellect.

Live by the shield, die by the shield, that’s what I say.

Rep. Dave Reichert has fashioned a comfy political career out of flashing his badge and campaigning as the “the Sheriff”… the man who took all the credit for tracking down the Green River Killer. But if he’s going to claim his experience running the King County Sheriff’s Office as his primary qualification for representing Washington’s 8th District in Congress, then he owes it to voters to answer questions about his tenure as the county’s top cop.

The Seattle P-I continues its series today, “Conduct Unbecoming”, exposing a history of mismanagement in the Sheriff’s Office, and once again, Reichert refused to cooperate:

Although two lower commanders recommended Saulet be fired, then-Sheriff Dave Reichert decided to suspend him for eight days.

Reichert, now a U.S. congressman, declined to comment.

Throughout the P-I‘s months-long series of investigative reports, Sheriff Reichert has refused to answer questions from reporters, even though he was the man in charge during much of the time covered. It was Reichert who ultimately failed to properly discipline or fire deputies who had committed serious crimes and conduct violations… and as the latest P-I installment reveals today, his lax attitude towards bad cops has cost taxpayers millions. And yet still, Reichert refuses to talk to reporters.

This is totally unacceptable, and our local media should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to let Reichert get away with his shrewd silence.

I don’t blame the P-I reporters covering this growing scandal; the most they can do is continue to badger him and then report his intransigence… and that they have done. But their colleagues at other local media outlets, and the editorialists on their own Op/Ed pages have fallen down on the job.

This is a major story in which Reichert played a major role, and he can’t be allowed to simply escape comment because it is politically inconvenient.

That reporters, columnists and editorialists continue to puff him up by touting Reichert’s experience as Sheriff — and yet refuse to hold him accountable for the job he did in that office — is a disgrace.

If Reichert has nothing to hide he should talk to the press, for voters have a right to know what kind of job he really did as Sheriff. But if he continues to suspiciously maintain his silence, voters have a right to know that too.

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.

Tomorrow’s edition of The Hill provides yet more evidence that the Reichert-Burner race has become one of the hottest in the nation:

Demonstrating concern about retaining the majority in November, the office of House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is holding weekly meetings with a handful of staffers of potentially vulnerable Republicans.
[…]
The weekly gatherings are an opportunity for the leader’s staff to walk the rank-and-file staffers through the upcoming agenda and hear from the offices about the political climate in some of the party’s most competitive districts. The member input provides insights and intelligence from campaigns across the country that leaders can use to influence their legislative agenda and strategy during a bitter election year.
[…]
The meetings with the staffs of vulnerable members occur once a week when the House is in session, Boehner spokesman Kevin Madden said, and staff from 12 offices usually attend.

Some of the members involved include Republican Reps. Steve Chabot (Ohio), Mike Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Jim Gerlach (Pa.), Bob Ney (Ohio), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Clay Shaw (Fla.) and Heather Wilson (N.M.). Each of those members’ districts is among the party’s most competitive, according to a chart compiled by The Cook Political Report.

The emphasis is of course mine, but it shows you just how worried the House GOP is about retaining Reichert’s seat. WA-8 has become one of the Republicans’ 12 most competitive races… so much so, that they’re willing to shape the national legislative agenda to help Reichert win.

A few short months ago pundits, poobahs and politicos thought WA-8 was a gimme, but now Darcy Burner’s surging campaign has put the fear of, well… Darcy Burner in them. Somehow, I don’t think anybody’s calling her a “third tier” candidate anymore.