Search Results for: Reichert

When Rep. Dave Reichert cast his Nay vote this evening against the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act, he didn’t just cast a vote against providing health care to millions of American children, he voted directly against the financial interests of Washington state. The bill not only provides health coverage to children in working families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but can’t afford insurance, it also more than doubles federal funds available to Washington state to cover uninsured children. According to a press release from Rep. Jay Inslee:

Until now, Washington and 10 other states were penalized for expanding health insurance coverage to children in families with incomes just over the poverty line before the popular State Children’s Insurance Plan (SCHIP) was enacted in 1997. Since enactment, they’ve had to fight every few years to spend even a fraction of unused federal funds to cover children at this income level. States that didn’t cover these children a decade ago have had no such limitation on the use of federal SCHIP funds.

A permanent fix for this inequity was included in the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act, H.R. 3162, legislation that would provide $50 billion in new funding for SCHIP and Medicare. It was secured last week by U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, when the bill was being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over SCHIP. He, along with U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott, Norm Dicks, Adam Smith, Brian Baird and Rick Larsen, then pressed House leadership to keep the Washington state fix in the bill that was considered on the House floor today.

“It’s been an uphill battle to end this injustice,” said Inslee. “The feds shouldn’t have shortchanged kids in Washington when SCHIP was set up a decade ago.”

The bill passed 225 to 204, no thanks to Reichert and the rest of our Republican delegation, who all voted against the interests of Washington state, and with their President Bush. Keep this vote in mind next year when our editorialists laud Reichert for his “conscience-driven independent streak.”

Darcy Burner has issued a press release challenging Rep. Dave Reichert to hold a town hall meeting during the August recess to explain to constituents his unwavering support for President Bush’s Iraq war policies:

“Doesn’t Congressman Reichert have the responsibility to stand in front of the people of his district to explain his stand on the War in Iraq? If he can vote more than a dozen times in favor of continuing and even escalating the war, can’t he talk to the voters in person just once about why he believes what he does?

“The voters deserve to hear directly from their elected representative on an issue of this magnitude, especially when the representative disagrees so strongly with the views of his constituents, as Congressman Reichert does,” Burner said. “While he is back in the district for his August vacation, I hope that this time he will not just hide from his constituents as he has done so many times in the past.”

Reichert, who has attacked Democrats for “meddling” and “politicizing” the war, has held only three town hall meetings since first being elected in 2004, and none since his reelection in 2006. Burner has consistently pledged that she would regularly meet with voters in an open and unscripted manner.

I called Reichert’s district office to ask if he had any town hall meetings, forums or public appearances coming up during the August recess, and was told that he has received invitations to events, but that there is currently nothing on his schedule.

This week the Seattle Times finally acknowledged that Rep. Dave Reichert is conservative, “maybe too conservative for his district,” and that was brought home again yesterday when Reichert voted for a Republican-backed amendment that would have cut off Title X funds for Planned Parenthood. The amendment was defeated 231 to 189.

“Congressman Reichert was one of 189 House members voting for this mean-spirited amendment,” said Karen Cooper, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. “The Title X program provides birth control to low-income Americans and Planned Parenthood clinics play a key role in actually delivering those services,” Cooper said. “There are already a number of restrictive policies in place that ban any federal money from being used to pay for abortion care, and the notion that law makers would also try to deny low-income people birth control is very troubling,” she added.

“Millions of Americans rely on Planned Parenthood clinics for basic health care services every year,” said Cooper. “I find it unconscionable that Reichert and his anti-choice cronies in Congress tried to single out an organization that provides cancer screening, breast exams, and birth control and target them for a ban on family planning funding just because some Planned Parenthood clinics also provide abortion care,” she said.

“Reichert’s vote in favor of the Pence amendment was just another reminder of how truly out-of-step he is with the pro-choice voters of the 8th Congressional District,” Cooper said. “It is clearly time for a change,” she concluded.

I’ve been told that polling conducted in the wake of the 2006 election showed that a substantial proportion of pro-choice 8th District voters were not aware of Reichert’s staunch anti-choice/anti-birth control stance on reproductive issues. I’m guessing voters might be better informed next time around.

According to an editorial in today’s Seattle Times…

Reichert is a conservative — maybe too conservative for his district.

Reichert a conservative? Who knew?

There are so many things I’m itching to write about, but a quote the other day from Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Sheriff’s Department) keeps sticking in my craw. The Seattle Times’ David Postman asked Reichert about his unwavering support for the president’s strategy in Iraq, and the congressman’s choice of words was telling.

Reichert still firmly supports President Bush. The congressman is a former sheriff. When he talks about the war he frequently relates it to police work.

Of course, Reichert always relates everything to his police work. I’m told a waiter once asked him if he needed a few more minutes to decide, and he snapped back something about “looking Gary Ridgeway straight in the eyes.” (Did I mention Reichert is a former sheriff?) But I digress…

And in this case he sees parallels between the criticism aimed at Bush and his most famous case, the hunt for the Green River Killer.

“During Green River we were just hammered on by the press and the community and I got hammered by people and criticized and I just feel some of the same pressures are being applied to the president.”

So, um, what the congressman is really telling us about the war in Iraq is that President Bush is the real victim here? … Just like Reichert was during the 18 years of the Green River Killer investigation?

How incredibly narcissistic. Dozens of young women were brutally strangled by Gary Ridgeway — some, years after Reichert personally dismissed Ridgeway as a suspect, early in the investigation — but ultimately it was Reichert who was the victim, hammered and criticized by an unfeeling press and an impatient community. How did he ever survive the pressure?

Likewise, it is not the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis or the 3,600 slain American troops and their families who are the victims of the president’s military misadventures… but Bush himself.

I have repeatedly ridiculed the Times for praising Reichert’s “conscience-driven independent streak,” when in fact he has displayed little independence at all. Now I’m not so sure he even has a conscience.

(Apparently, Dan noticed the empty page first.)

The FEC reports for the second quarter (1 Apr–30 Jun) are in. The result: Darcy Burner has raised more money than Dave Reichert (R-WA-08). She has also spent less money, and has more cash on hand.

Here is how Real Clear Politics describes it:

The NRCC may be concerned about three of their incumbents who raised less than $200,000 for the quarter. Washington Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA 08) raised $192,000, while his 2006 opponent, businesswoman Darcy Burner (D), raised $199,000. Burner held on to $185,000, while Reichert retains $162,000.

The reason the NRCC should be concerned is because of Reichert’s anemic performance. The 19 Republicans enrolled in the NRCC’s (erronously titled) Retain Our Majority Program for vulnerable incumbents raised an average of $316,000 with an average of $455,000 in hand. It seems that Reichert’s fundraising prowess and fiscal management are not quite up to snuff.

Burner not only out-fundraised Reichert, but her campaign spent only 38% of what Reichert’s campaign spent (Reichert: $140,000; Burner: $53,000).

The contribution profile differs between the two candidates. Darcy raised $183,500 from individual contributions compared to Reichert’s $99,600. Nearly half of Reichert’s contributions ($92,800) came from political action committees; whereas, Burner took in only $16,000 in PAC contributions.

Reichert’s anemic fundraising is likely a symptom of voter dissatisfaction with the continued military operations in Iraq. That is, Reichert’s 100% support for Bush on Iraq is causing him the same difficulties that Presidential hopeful John McCain has. As Goldy pointed out earlier, Daniel Kirkdorffer at On the Road to 2008 predicts a Reichert flip-flop on the Iraq issue this coming September, right after the Petraeus report.

That might help his fundraising a bit. On the other hand, a Reichert flip-flop will highlight Reichert’s blind loyalty to Bush for three years in which thousands of U.S. soldiers died and tens of thousands were wounded.

I suspect voters will be ready for a change.

Daniel Kirkdoffer is demonstrating his eerie psychic powers over at On The Road to 2008:

Congressman Reichert has a tendency to flip. Sometimes he’ll simply flop. Often, he’ll change his position on an issue during the time it is being considered by the U.S. House.

We saw him flip on stem cell research.

We saw him flop on raising the minimum wage, before finally supporting a Democratic bill that did just that.

We saw him vote for ANWR drilling, while simultaneously stating his was against it.

Sometimes we’re not sure what exactly is driving his votes, as he has stated that he often votes how his party tells him to vote.

So I’m here to predict that later this year, Dave Reichert will once again flip, but this time on an issue he has voted with the Bush administration 100% of the time: the Iraq occupation.

Of course Reichert will eventually flip-flop on the Iraq war occupation. He’ll have to… at least, if he wants to win reelection. With a 100-percent Bush/Cheney voting record on Iraq in the face of a rising sentiment to bring our troops home, Reichert must either flop where he once flipped, or follow the President’s lead in flipping the bird to public opinion. I’m betting his handlers will convince him to choose the former.

So let’s start a betting pool. Post in the comment thread your prediction of when Reichert will flip-flop on Iraq — that is vote, or make a public statement in opposition to Bush administration policy — and the person who comes closest will win a pitcher of beer (or the cash equivalent) courtesy of HA.

The rumors from Washington are that Rep. Dave Reichert (WA-8) is absolutely miserable, being a bit player in a fractious, fractured, and demoralized minority party. Perhaps Reichert has aspirations for bigger and better things…

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, 10/22/04

On 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.

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.

In a surprise announcement on Saturday evening, Congressman Dave Reichert declared that he has switched political parties. “The time is right for me to switch to the Democrat Par…I mean, the Democratic Party,” said Riechert who represents Washington’s 8th congressional district. “This is a move I’ve considered seriously since early last November, when I suddenly realized my independent-minded values were more in line with those of the Democrats. As my critics have pointed out, I’ve increasingly become indecisive, and that is a reflection of the inner conflict.”

When asked why he waited nearly six months to make the change, Reichert responded, “I was waiting for the right time. Today is Joel Connelly’s birthday, and I guess I saved it as a birthday surprise for him.” Also, my investigations of global warming are now complete. I’m convinced that Al Gore is right—we really do need to be manufacturing and dropping giant ice cubes into the ocean.”

Reichert’s former spokesperson Kimberly Cadena resigned last week fueling speculation that the Congressman might be considering a jump to the Democratic party. Reichert announced that Cadena will be replaced by Sandeep Kaushik, currently the part-time Deputy Communications Director for King County Executive Ron Sims.

When asked about the reaction of his former Republican colleagues Reichert replied, “Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I’ve stared down the barrel of a loaded pistol and saw my name inscribed on the tip of the bullet…you can believe I can stare into the eyes of any disgruntled Republican colleague without flinching.”

Reichert told reporters that his first priority as a new Democrat will be to “figure out how they want me to vote.” Reichert also expected he might be called upon to personally provide security for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-08). “I moonlighted a bit as a Republican in protecting her footwear. Now, if she wants me to, I’ll be acting more as a personal sheriff for the Speaker. And let me be clear, here, that school bus drivers are on notice—you respect the Speaker because this sheriff is watching.”

Rep. Pelosi was not available for comment.

I’ve had some fun at Rep. Dave Reichert’s expense in recent posts, mocking our nation’s 419th most powerful congressman for his lack of influence and his ham-fisted recommendations to replace ousted U.S. Attorney John McKay. But it looks like our state’s juniorest congressman could become a much more formidable force in both Washingtons now that Reichert seems to be following the savvy lead of a crack new political advisor: me.

Just last week I advised Reichert that the whole brouhaha was a rare opportunity to combine good policy with political expedience by nominating the eminently qualified John McKay to replace himself. And today we read in the Seattle Times that he’s kinda, sorta doing sorta, kinda that:

Rep. Dave Reichert has come to the defense of fired U.S. Attorney John McKay, whom he praised for pushing the federal government to work more closely with law enforcement in the Seattle area.

“It doesn’t seem to me that John’s being treated fairly,” Reichert, R-Auburn, said Tuesday.

He suggested the Justice Department reinstate McKay as U.S. attorney while the agency and Congress investigate “why they fired him.”

Sure, it’s a couple months late and more than a few dollars short, but it does at least show that somebody on Reichert’s staff is attune to the political danger — and opportunity — inherent in this growing scandal. Reichert’s newfound public skepticism follows that of Rob McKenna, who last week said that President Bush “made a mistake.” But McKay was fired months ago, and both McKenna and Reichert were actively involved in naming his replacement, thus their sudden willingness to speak out in his defense should be viewed in the context of the prior failure to do so.

Perhaps if Reichert and his staff continue reading my column, they can get out in front of the next inevitable scandal. I’m always eager to help.

Update: That’s swell of Reichert to take Goldy’s advice and ask the Justice Department to reinstate McKay as U.S. attorney. Before doing so, I’m sure Reichert listened to all the complaints against McKay, investigated the facts (as he’s inclined to do), and weighed all of the evidence. In the end, it seems Reichert has rejected Stefan Sharkansky’s theories about election fraud and the suggestion that McKay didn’t properly investigate the 2004 election. I’m just sayin’… [—Darryl]

Of course I was only joking when I suggested that Rep. Dave Reichert should recommend “Major” to replace John McKay as U.S. attorney for Western Washington. That would be ridiculous. Major doesn’t even live in Western Washington, and like Rick White, he isn’t currently eligible to practice law in the state. And, oh yeah… he’s a dog.

But if Reichert really wants to live up to the Seattle Times’ absurd assertion that he possesses “a conscience-driven independent streak,” then I have a serious suggestion that would not only put the U.S. attorney’s office in the hands of perhaps the most qualified candidate out there, but would absolutely cement our local media’s love affair with the notion that Reichert is a political moderate. Reichert should recommend replacing McKay with a candidate who has years of prosecutorial experience, a demonstrated respect for the Constitution, and an unchallenged reputation for rising above the political fray. Reichert should nominate John McKay.

Really.

Politicians are often faced with a choice between good policy and political expedience, but this is one of those rare occasions when doing the right thing would also qualify as a stunning act of political savvy. Think about it. Who is best qualified to fill out the final two years of the term? A six-year U.S. attorney with excellent performance reviews, or a one-time bankruptcy attorney with expired credentials who would have to bone up on the legal profession itself, let alone learn the job on the job? If Reichert wants to nominate the best qualified candidate, McKay is the hands-down winner.

Plus, a McKay nomination would not only inoculate Reichert from the growing scandal surrounding Gonzales, Rove and the teetering Bush administration, it would in a single stroke forever establish his credentials as the conscience-driven independent he pretends to be. A Republican congressman sticking it to the Justice Department like that would make national headlines, while transforming Reichert into a local hero.

From a purely political perspective, it would be fucking brilliant. Which I suppose explains why you’re more likely to see Reichert nominate Major than McKay.

UPDATE:
Dave Neiwert at Orcinus is also calling for John McKay’s name to be resubmitted.

Rep. Dave Reichert
US House of Representatives
1223 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Rep. Reichert,

I understand that you have submitted three candidates to the White House as a replacement for John McKay as U.S. attorney for Western Washington, and while I understand that at least two of the candidates have adequate legal credentials, I fear that in conducting your search you may have overlooked the most important qualification: loyalty.

It wasn’t McKay’s legal expertise or prosecutorial skills or even his investigative shortcomings that cost him his job (hell, it’s not like it took him 18 years to catch a serial killer who was a prime suspect from day one,) it was his lack of loyalty that got him fired. What President Bush and your fellow Republicans need most in this office is not a top-notch legal mind, but a faithful and loyal companion.

And who could be more faithful and loyal than Major, who is not only looking for a new home, but could use a high-paying government job as well? Here is his CV:

Hi, I am Major. Well yes I do know I am gorgeous but please… try not to gush. I am indeed a big friendly golden boy but be aware I do have just a touch of a stubborn attitude (perhaps there is some chow in me?) and I just might believe that I am as smart as you are. I do have a great sense of humor and will prefer that in my human as well. Other dogs are great but I am really more of a people dog. If you are looking for a loving, devoted, intelligent companion I am your man. Take me home and lets make mischief together.

Yeah, sure, Major might believe that he’s smarter than you, but then who doesn’t? And you yourself can attest to how being a “big friendly golden boy” can take you far in politics.

So please, add Major to your list of candidates for U.S. attorney. Major desperately needs a new home, and Attorney General Gonzales desperately needs a loving, devoted companion, who enjoys making mischief. It’s a perfect match.

Respectfully yours,

Goldy

UPDATE:
When in the above letter I quipped that “at least two” of the candidates were qualified, I was of course implying that Rick White was not. Well, HA regular Richard Pope has more on that in the comment thread, pointing out that White was suspended from practicing law in 2003, and is currently not eligible to practice law in Washington state.

But he is a loyal Republican, and really, that’s all that matters.