Search Results for: Dave Reichert

Freshman Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-WA-3) got a little attention today from the national press. And, um…it wasn’t exactly a profile in political courage.

The original story comes from The Columbian (my emphasis):

Who should be informed of the opportunity to meet with their elected officials? Who decides how that should happen? According to U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Camas, she does.
[…]

On Friday The Chronicle in Centralia received a phone call from Herrera Beutler staffer and Communications Director Casey Bowman informing the newspaper of the meeting. Bowman asked that a meeting announcement not be placed in the paper. However, he did invite the paper to cover the event.

The Chronicle refused his request and published an announcement in Saturday’s paper.

The reason for not publishing an advance notice of the meeting was the fear that people from outside the immediate area could come and “just yell” at the congresswoman “whatever’s on their minds,” Bowman said Friday.

Perhaps Herrera Beutler can get together with Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-8) and charter a G.O.P. Coward’s Club.

The Sierra Club has released their report card for Washington state’s congressional representatives:

• Jay Inslee (D-01), A+
• Rick Larsen (D-02), A
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-03), F
• Doc Hastings (R-04), F
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-05), F
• Norm Dicks (D-06), A+
• Jim McDermott (D-07), A+
• Dave Reichert (R-08), C
• Adam Smith (D-09), A+

Notice a pattern?

The best of the Republicans, Reichert, who was once taped confessing to pro-environmental votes as a way take environmentalists “out of the game”, only gets away with a C—and that’s based on his voting record.

The bottom line: Republicans are really, really bad for the environment.

Once again, the Tacoma News Tribune has achieved a level of stupidity that is both remarkable and depressing. And with Ken Burns’ fantastic series on alcohol prohibition airing this week on PBS, I should probably add inexcusable to that list as well.

The fun began over the weekend when TNT reporter Rob Carson filed a report about how he was able to get a medical marijuana authorization from a doctor he only saw over Skype. Anyone who’s familiar with the medical marijuana situation in the state knows that this kind of nonsense happens. At Seattle Hempfest, there were women with bikinis at the entrance encouraging people to “get legal” or to “get their green card”. Hell, we don’t even have “green cards” in this state.

Most people are smart enough to know that this will happen as long as there’s a way for people to make money from it. It’s no different from before medical marijuana was around, when there were thousands of people in this state willing to illegally sell pot to you for money. Now, along with those people, there are now people willing to provide you with a medical marijuana authorization for money. Not much of a difference other than the level of professional risk. These are merely the evolving ways that the futility of prohibiting a widely used recreation drug manifests itself.

As soon as I saw Carson’s report, I knew there was another Editorial Board disaster in the making. And they did not disappoint:

Restoring credibility to medical marijuana in Washington will require separating drug-seekers from the seriously ill people who may genuinely need it.

Anyone who cares about the latter should be anxious to prevent recreational users and abusers from discrediting the whole system – as is happening in Tacoma on a large scale.

The TNT seems awfully concerned about the credibility of medical marijuana, but they might need to be a little more worried about their own credibility. Hardly anyone disputes the fact that there are folks who derive genuine value from the medical use of marijuana. Even Dave Reichert has come to realize this after the reality of its effectiveness hit close to home. The fact that large numbers of recreational users come up with medical excuses doesn’t discredit that reality at all. But it does discredit the morons who can’t figure that out.

For the last two years, pot-lovers across the state have found it increasingly easy to get the so-called green cards that protect them from the law.

Wow, two big problems. There are no such thing as “green cards”. Anyone who’s told by a doctor that they are getting a “green card” is being scammed. This state does not have a registry system. What a doctor (or other licensed health professional) can give you is an authorization on special tamper-proof paper. And if a police officer finds your medical marijuana and he/she doesn’t think your authorization is valid? Well, he/she can still arrest your ass and see if the prosecutor will press charges. So not only are people not getting “green cards”, they don’t even have protection from the law. Of course, this fact makes the editorial even more completely pointless so it’s not surprising they’re not explaining it well.

Tacoma officials have accommodated them by tolerating a proliferation of illegal marijuana stores that now – according to licensing records – greatly outnumber the city’s pharmacies.

And according to a study by the RAND Corporation, it’s very possible that they lead to a reduction in crime in their immediate vicinity. So what’s the problem? Let’s get more of them!

That’s the visible end of the sham, but it’s not the headwater. Upstream, the industry is sustained by ever-growing numbers of common marijuana smokers who’ve discovered how easy it is get authorization papers on flimsy pretexts.

Who cares? Either those recreational smokers buy marijuana from someone who’s likely being supplied by organized crime, or they can buy it from a locally run dispensary who pays taxes and keeps the profits in the community. I know which option I prefer.

The News Tribune’s Rob Carson, for example, reported Sunday that, after walking into a Tacoma marijuana outlet, he was able to get medical authorization via the Internet from a nurse practitioner in another part of the state.

When the TNT finally goes tits up, I will pay top dollar for their fainting couch.

State law permits providers to authorize marijuana to treat debilitating or intractable pain that can’t be relieved by other treatments. Carson’s long-distance nurse quickly recommended marijuana for shoulder discomfort he normally handled with ibuprofen.

Sure, and if Carson got caught with marijuana and charged with possession, that authorization very likely wouldn’t hold up in court. Although if he were almost anywhere in King County, the prosecutor likely would have more important things to do than to charge him anyway. And if he were in Seattle, he wouldn’t even need the authorization.

The medical ethics of too many pot docs are a joke. Supposed professionals recommend marijuana to the vast majority of “patients” they see, and they offer their customers their money back if they don’t walk away with a license to use. It’s all about the cash.

Wow, how’d you unravel that mystery?! Boy, your investigative skills are top-notch.

Judge John Hickman of the Pierce County Superior Court has lost patience with the charade. He has refused to return confiscated “medical marijuana” to two Tacomans unless they demonstrate that their authorizations actually comply with state law.

Um, I believe they were providers, so even if their own authorizations don’t hold up, they only have to prove that they were providing for a valid patient.

These two aren’t the issue; they may well be in compliance. What’s important is that somebody – at last – is insisting that authorizations pass muster with someone other than a marijuana merchant.

That’s been the law, numbnuts. Look up State v. Fry.

Somebody – preferably, responsible medical professionals – should be scrutinizing the authorizers on a routine basis.

They already do, and few people get upset about it. In fact, a doctor who writes medical marijuana authorizations was one of the main people providing input for how the new law passed this year should prevent scammers.

Marijuana advocates talk about moving the drug from Schedule I to Schedule II, which would allow doctors to legally prescribe it.

That may not be a bad idea. But the prescribing of Schedule II drugs, such as Percocet and amphetamines, is monitored by professional oversight bodies and ultimately by pharmacists. Doctors get sanctioned if they get too prescription-happy.

Actually most marijuana advocates think it should be lower that Schedule II (which is where cocaine and methamphetamine are listed), but the general sentiment is true. If a doctor thinks that you could benefit from medical marijuana, you should be able to obtain it from a safe place where the safety of the drug is most assured. And every medical marijuana supporter I’ve ever known wants more research done to find out exactly what the plant does and how it’s most effective. Up until now, it’s mostly anecdotal and that’s far from ideal.

Sorry this is long, but for an editorial this clueless, it requires a full line-by-line takedown. Here’s the utterly obnoxious end:

Medical marijuana advocates who are out to help the genuinely sick – not furtively legalize the drug for all comers – wouldn’t object to tighter regulations of their own. Would they?

Sorry, but I’m here to both help the genuinely sick AND legalize the drug for all (adult) comers. I mentioned this week’s PBS documentary on alcohol prohibition for a reason, and it’s because the parallels are all too obvious.

During alcohol prohibition, there was a medical exemption for alcohol. If you could get a doctor to write you a prescription for whiskey, you were able to buy “medicinal” booze through legal channels. There was also a religious exemption. This led to a lot of priests and rabbis getting rich supplying people’s “spiritual activities”. All of this was cynical and all of it was driven by greed. But the answer to that problem wasn’t to crack down on the cynical ways people were able to exploit the law to get rich. The answer was to recognize that trying to stamp out a widely popular recreational drug is impossible, and that it was much smarter to make it legal and regulate its sale to all adults. The answer for marijuana is the same, and this should be obvious to anyone with both a brain and a minimal knowledge of history. But it appears that the folks at the Tacoma News-Tribune editorial board still have neither.

A couple of months ago, State Auditor Brian Sonntag made the “difficult” decision to not jump into the gubernatorial race. At the time I wrote:

Sonntag is nominally a Democrat, with a track record that includes things like endorsing Republican King County Executive candidate Susan Hutchison, snuggling spooning blowing Tim Eyman, and participating in Teabagger events.

We can only hope that the buzz about a potential Sonntag gubernatorial bid has encouraged some talented people to think about running for the open Auditor seat. And with any luck, they’ll still run, but now against Sonntag. Otherwise, I’m afraid, Sonntag will maintain his grip on the State Auditor’s office…well, until it’s pried out of his cold, dead hands.

Sonntag remains amongst the living. But, apparently, he came up short on a self-performance audit. Today he announced his intention to retire from the position, leaving another statewide open seat—the fourth.

So let’s all follow Dwight Pelz’s lead and thank Brian and wish him well:

“Brian Sonntag’s 35 year record of public service goes nearly unmatched in Washington State. He has been a true state leader, an advocate for the people of Washington, and an independent voice in the Democratic Party. On his retirement from the auditor’s office, we wish him our heartfelt thanks and congratulations.”

I have no idea who will run for the open position. Perhaps Susan DelBene? DelBene has an MBA from the University of Washington. The former tech-sector CEO and Microsoft corporate VP ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Dave Reichert in 2010. She is currently director for the Washington State Department of Revenue. DelBene’s resume looks quite good for the position.

Republicans just don’t bother to put up candidates for the position anymore.

[S]tate GOP spokesman Josh Amato said Monday: “We liked what Brian was doing. We weren’t working on taking him out of office.”

With the office open, however, Republicans expect to have qualified candidates willing to run, Amato said.

Here’s an idea that will add some zest to the race: Republicans should draft Tim “Biggest Lie of My Life” Eyman. Tim should grow the fuck up and compete for a real job. He can then stop his continuous begging for (and occasional theft of) money from his supporters. And he can give up his whoring ways, “servicing” rich donors like Michael Dunmire and Kemper Freeman, Jr. Eyman can go all respectable on us.

On the other hand…maybe Republicans can repeat their 2004 strategy: putting Will Baker on the ballot for State Auditor.

Jaime Herrera Beutler appears to be learning a lot in Congress. In particular, she’s learning how to avoid interacting with the people she represents. I’m guessing Dave Reichert is her mentor.

– I did not mean to imply that Bachmann might have been anything other than awful for the country thus far.

– Time to Play on Rainier Ave.

– This pastry prevents Rick Perry from explaining why he thinks Social Security is unconstitutional.

– The Civil War Isn’t Tragic.

– Dave Reichert’s unemployment line.

The Republicans are still trying to find a credible opponent for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in 2012. Former Bush Deputy White House spokesperson and Bush-Cheney ‘04 Press Secretary, Scott Stanzel is considering it.

But I said “credible.”

And now Seattle Weekly‘s Mike Seely writes:

…lately we’ve been hearing somewhat credible rumors that 8th District Congressman Dave Reichert might be up for abandoning his seat and challenging Cantwell. So is this chatter serious, or is there a stealthier factor at play here?

By “stealthier factor” he means that Reichert is using such rumors to leverage a more favorable redistricting outcome.

Seely ponders:

But what if Reichert’s motives are more pure? What would ensue would be a fascinating race between polar opposites: Cantwell, the wonkish brainiac who takes on issues of substance yet struggles with retail politics and staff retention, versus Reichert, the dull knife who gets by on Ken-doll looks, law-enforcement legend, and timely tacks to the center.

That would be fun! I like it. Reichert is, for sure, a stronger opponent for Cantwell than is Stanzel. But a Reichert challenge would accomplish two things. First, it opens up the Democratic-leaning 8th CD (which, of course, may be unrecognizable by 2012). Second, it means Republicans would dump lots of money into the race. Less so with Stanzel; Republicans would find more promising races upon which to spend their spoils.

This is Reichert’s big Window of Opportunity…but could he win?

In a statewide competition against an uberwonk, Reichert would not get away with his usual strategy of dodging all things substantive. He’ll have to speak in public and try to come off as intelligent and informed. No more “I’ve looked in a microscope and seen the heartbeat of a stem cell” moments; no more, “I don’t know enough about this issue, so I’ll pass on the question” answers like he gave in his 2006 debate against Darcy Burner. No more confessions of voting the way the leadership tells him to vote. The Cantwell campaign would eat him alive for such blunders.

So, no, he can’t. If Reichert sticks his head through that Window of Opportunity…he’ll get his freakin’ throat slit….

Will the Republicans come up with a credible challenger to Sen. Maria Cantwell for 2012? The topic came up at Drinking Liberally last week, and I’ve been been thinking about it on and off since then. Specifically…who?

Jim Brunner puts together a good analysis. At this point, the big challenge for any potential Republican is money. The clock is running. Cantwell is raising money. Her non-existent Republican opponent isn’t.

Former Washington state Republican Chairman Chris Vance has the political side figured out. (I like how he is able to say reality-based stuff that current Chairman Kirby Wilbur could never say):

“[R]ight now, it’s very much in doubt whether there is going to be a strong candidate.”

“The Republican brand got hammered on the West Coast during the Bush years, and it has not recovered….There are just so many more Democrats than Republicans in Washington state right now — the math just becomes very difficult.”

and

“If a Republican is going to have any chance to beat Cantwell, they have to immediately and sharply distance themselves from the national Republican Party”

Brunner offers three possible challengers: Susan Hutchison, who lost a race for King County Executive to Ron Sims Dow Constantine in 2009, Rep. Dave Reichert, and Port of Seattle Commissioner Bill Bryant.

Not impressive.

Dino! Your party needs you!

Public Policy Polling has released polling results in the 2012 Washington state gubernatorial race. Their press release gets right to the point:

McKenna, Inslee basically tied for WA Gov.

[…]The most likely match up for Governor of Washington next year looks like it would be a barn burner, with Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna starting out with just a 40-38 lead over Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee. With 23% of Democrats and only 13% of Republicans undecided at this point that looks like a sheer toss up.

The main reason McKenna is ahead of Inslee at this point is slightly higher name recognition.

(The same poll finds Inslee beating Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) handily, 42% to 36%.)

McKenna is the more recognized brand right now, with 60% of respondents having formed an opinion of him, whereas only 51% have formed an opinion on Inslee.

What I found interesting in the crosstabs is that, in a McKenna—Inslee match-up, groups likely to support Inslee have higher “uncertain” responses:

• Liberals 31%, conservatives 28%
• Women 25%, men 18%
• Democrats 23%, Republicans 13%
• 18-29 year olds 24%, about 13% for older voters

Thus it seems support for Inslee has the greater growth potential as name recognition improves.

I know…I shouldn’t pick on the pathetic. But I will anyway.

Two weeks ago, after an Elway poll came out with mixed news for Sen. Maria Cantwell, I did a preliminary assessment of Cantwell’s vulnerability to a Republican challenger. I didn’t find the minor weaknesses uncovered by the Elway poll overly concerning. The poll didn’t do head-to-head match-ups for a general election, but it did find 46% would vote to keep Cantwell in office, and 36% would vote to replace her—a result almost identical that at this point in the 2006 election cycle.  

My non-concern also reflected evidence from a much richer series of data from Survey USA’s regular tracking polls. They show Cantwell’s recent approval bouncing erratically from about 40% to 55%, with the most recent one at 49%.

Now Public Policy Polling has released a new poll that sheds more light on Cantwell’s lack of vulnerability. The poll finds her with 50% approval and 36 disapproval:

Cantwell is pretty universally well liked within her own party, at 80/7 with Democrats. She’s also on narrowly positive ground with independents at 44/40 and has a 17% approval rating with Republicans, which is a decent amount of crossover support (we generally found Patty Murray with a single digit approval with GOP voters over the course of last year’s campaign.)

The Republican who comes closest to Cantwell is an old favorite- Dino Rossi, who trails 53-40. Susan Hutchison and Dave Reichert do next best, both trailing by a 49-35 margin. Clint Didier trails 51-35 and Cathy McMorris Rodgers has the largest deficit at 50-31. Cantwell wins independent voters by 5-12 points in all of the match ups and picks up 8-9% of the Republican vote while only losing 2-5% of the Democratic vote.

Wow…a 17% approval with Republicans!

The head-to-head match-ups suggest that none of the Republican challengers can do any better against Cantwell than Mike McGavick’s dismal 39.9% result in 2006.

The bottom line:

Cantwell’s reasonably popular and the GOP doesn’t have anyone good to run against her.

This pretty much validates my statement from two weeks ago, “given the absence of a strong opponent on the horizon, I am simply unwilling to fret over a single Elway Poll….”

This new poll illuminates the state of the state Republicans: their candidate pool is nothing short of pathetic. There are almost no Republicans with any statewide appeal. Attorney General McKenna is about it, and he’s looking for opportunities elsewhere.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is facing re-election and a new Elway poll takes the pulse of the electorate. Josh at Publicola writes.

First the bad news for U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, who’s up for reelection next year: A new Elway poll finds her “Job Performance” rating at 52 percent “negative” to 42 percent “positive.” (It was nearly the exact opposite in 2005, also a year out from reelection, when her numbers were 52 positive vs. 38 negative.)

The good news?

The GOP doesn’t have any promising challengers. In Elway’s imaginary open primary against a batch of Republicans including: U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert; former KIRO TV anchor Susan Hutchison; Tea Party activist Clint Didier; and Port Commissioner Bill Bryant—Cantwell wins big with 47 percent of the vote.

And that pretty much guarantees Cantwell a spot on the November ballot.

You may recall that Cantwell beat Mike McGavick 56.9% to 39.9% in 2006. Clearly, she can do a lot worse in 2012 and still come out on top. And as flawed as McGavick was, it is not clear that the Republicans have anyone better in the wings. Let’s explore some other polling results for Cantwell in order to better frame the Elway poll.

Survey USA has collected a series of polls from May 2005 until the last poll taken from 16-18 April 2011:

On May 10 of 2005, the first poll on the graph, Cantwell had an approval of 45% and a disapproval of 35%. The most recent poll has her at 49% approval to 40% disapproval. The spread is about the same, but her approval and disapproval are higher in the recent poll because there are fewer undecided folks now.

Clearly, after that May 2005 poll, Cantwell’s approval increased dramatically and stayed relatively high until the Summer of 2009. Since then Cantwell’s approval has been more volatile. Six of the last 20 polls since then show her with higher disapproval, but with an overall trend of a higher approval. And given the absence of a strong opponent on the horizon, I am simply unwilling to fret over a single Elway Poll….

A new King 5/SurveyUSA poll of the 2012 Washington state gubernatorial race has Attorney General Rob McKenna (R-WA) leading Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) by +7 (48% to 41%). A match-up with Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) has Reichert slightly ahead of Inslee, 46% to 44%.

The poll also matched up Gov. Christine Gregoire (D-WA). (Right…Like that’s gonna happen.) She’s down 12% to McKenna and 4% to Reichert.

The poll sampled 610 registered voters and has a margin of error of about 4%.

I decided to grease the gears and wind-up the ol’ calculating machine to tabulate some probabilistic outcomes from these poll data. I’ve posted these Monte Carlo analysis on HA for many years now, but in case you want more details, see that (somewhat outdated) FAQ. Here are results for the Inslee match-ups.

In the Inslee versus McKenna race, a million simulated elections has Inslee winning 95,892 times to McKenna’ s 898,897 wins. That is, if the election had been held yesterday, Inslee would have a 9.6% chance of winning, to McKenna’s 90.4% chance. Here is the distribution of outcomes:

That’s a lot of red.

Less so in the Inslee versus Reichert match-up. Inslee takes 350,198 of the simulated elections to Reichert’s 638,521. That is, Inslee would have about a 35.4% chance of beating Reichert in an election held now, based only on the evidence collected by the poll. Here is the distribution of outcomes:

So…is Washington going all Wisconsin on us? Are we going to get our own replay of the radical right-wing War on Workers, War on Women, War on Railroads, War on Health Care, and relaxation of child labor laws, seen in other states with newly elected Republican governors? It could be, but not really based on these polls. They are taken way, way too early to have any predictive power for an election held in a year and a half.

If there is any message here, it is that its never too early to start working for the candidate that most closely reflects your vision of what Washington should be.

The Republicans are sure waging a shit-load of wars against Americans.

Consider just last week. First the House Republicans:

…approved two resolutions that would amend the FY 2011 spending bill to block funding designated for Planned Parenthood and last year’s healthcare law. But House passage is largely symbolic, as the Senate did not pass either of the bills.

After that, House Republicans passed Rep. Ryan’s budget bill that privatizes Medicare, radically cuts the federal contribution to Medicaid, creates even more tax cuts for the rich and some corporations, and repeals health care reforms. The bill is DOA in the Senate, not to mention the Oval Office. And it should be DOA to most Americans.

One half the population ought to be outraged at the Republican’s War on Women. And add to that a lot non-women folk who like to fuck without making babies. Many of these non-women appreciate that Planned Parenthood provides help with that. In other words, a big chunk of young voting-age (or almost voting-age) Americans should be repulsed by these senseless political attacks on Planned Parenthood.

It is hard to imagine that senior citizens can be big fans of higher out-of-pocket insurance costs proposed in Ryan’s Medicare privatization bill to fund tax cuts for the rich. Some Seniors must find Rep. Dave Reichert’s War on AARP a little unsettling.

The poor, the disabled? I cannot believe they enjoyed being screwed by the Republicans.

All this comes on top of prior alienation. African Americans? Pretty much lost to the G.O.P. already. Hispanics? There was a small blip in increased support in 2010, but still down about 22% on average. And union members? Yeah…like they’re going to forgive and forget the War on Workers playing out in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Maine, Michigan, etc. The LGBT communities? Not really big supporters.

Republicans have lost the old, the young, the poor and disadvantaged, women, workers, and the nation’s largest minority groups. So who’s left?

Rich White Guys. That’s who.

Oh…yeah. Corporations, too.

But Republicans are not going to be voted out of office en masse. Even if a huge majority of Americans would be financially hurt by G.O.P. legislation, and even if they are morally opposed to the extremist agenda of the current crop of batshit crazy Republicans, Americans will still vote against their economic self-interest and moral principles. The Republicans will offer to rape them; they will assent.

Why? Some people are not paying attention. And other people are easily swayed. There is almost no harm that can be proposed or undertaken by Republicans that cannot be undone with enough money in the weeks leading up to an election.

Apparently Republicans have done this calculation, and they have concluded that the money infused by Rich White Guys and Wealthy Corporations over the next few elections will overcome the losses incurred by their all-out assault on most Americans.

Have they erred in their calculations?

It appears that – contrary to popular belief – Dave Reichert does things in Washington:

AARP lobbied for the new health care law and now it stands to profit, Republican lawmakers charged Wednesday as they called for the IRS to investigate whether the powerful interest group representing older Americans should be stripped of its federal tax exemption.

Three veteran GOP representatives released a report that estimates the seniors lobby could make an additional $1 billion over 10 years on health insurance plans whose sales are expected to pick up under the new law. They also questioned seven-figure compensation for some AARP executives.

“Based on the available evidence, substantial questions remain about whether AARP should maintain its tax-exempt status,” said the report, released by Reps. Wally Herger of California, Charles Boustany of Louisiana and Dave Reichert of Washington.

As Sarge in Seattle points out:

By definition, AARP makes no profit, and has no shareholders to distribute profits to. What it does have is a lot of money to promote the interests of its members, lobby Congress, and fund various charitable organizations.

AARP is big, and the CEO makes a lot of money. But it is neither an insurance company nor a for profit organization. Congressman Sander Levin of Michigan called this for what it is; a “witch hunt”.

That’s all true, but it avoids the most unseemly thing about Reichert’s attempt to “go Full ACORN” on the AARP. Insurance companies – whose practices should be far more of a concern to the American public – make profits and pay out salaries that completely dwarf what anyone at the AARP makes, yet are ignored by Reichert and his cronies. These companies also got what they wanted with the Affordable Care Act.

If Dave Reichert actually cared about how much money non-profits like the AARP are able to finagle for themselves in a system where the government will soon force citizens to buy private coverage without a public alternative, he’d be advocating for the one big structural change that could undercut all the profiteering – a public option. But he’s not concerned about those structural issues, only the non-profits who gain from them. His constituency isn’t the middle class family in Auburn who struggles to find adequate health care coverage – he could give a fuck about them. His constituency is the insurance company who doesn’t like the fact that the AARP has been able to use their trusted name to rake in lots of money in the health care market.

It’s entirely possible that the AARP will get roasted for their actions here, but with Dave Reichert and the House Republicans driving the bus until 2013, the situation for America’s families is only going to get worse.

UPDATE: Curtis Cartier at the Weekly writes:

AARP functions in two distinct ways–one, as a lobbying group, dedicated to advancing causes for seniors; two, as a kind of “branding organization” that offers to lend its name to certain products (namely insurance plans) for a cost.

It’s these dual roles that Republicans believe should disqualify the group from tax exemptions.

Sort of like how they are also calling for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lose its tax-exempt status for supporting the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, which stands to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to its corporations through their ability to anonymously contribute to political campaigns, right?

Wait, I’m being told that Republicans have made no such demands.

A couple folks have asked me recently if I’ve heard anything about Rep. Dave Reichert stepping down. A couple other folks have asked me if I’ve heard anything about Reichert challenging Sen. Maria Cantwell in 2012. Unless Reichert’s head injury is giving him more trouble than he admits, the latter seems more likely, but it has me thinking that perhaps the two rumors might be conflated.

What does seem clear is that WA-08 will very likely become a bit bluer in 2012, losing a chunk of its Republican-leaning southern part of the district, as WA-10 inevitably squeezes its northern neighbors from the south. So it might not be a bad time for Reichert to make an honorable exit.