The liberal media will probably ignore the Reivhert had anything to do with it at all if it passes, just like they did with the Wild Sky bill.

The low quality Dary Burner 's comments is indicative not only of a total lack of class and understanding, but should be an emarrassment to any D. But as with all the hype she has received from the media for her supposed end the Iraq war "white paper," which has as much substance as a bowl of jello, she will continue to get a free pass. She emobdies everything that is wrong with politics today -- stridently partisan to the point of not caring a whit about real, substantive policy.

"The argument that Reichert’s votes are cheap bids at looking moderate, I think, will be a tough sell with voters if Burner needs to say Reichert voted against the bills before he voted for them."

David, that's an interesting thought in light of how effective a similar claim was when it was made against John Kerry.

For my part, if a bill is a good bill, then it is a good bill. I have no axe to grind with Inslee or Dicks co-sponsoring any good bill.

Votes are one measure of a member of Congress. Bill introductions are usually cheap talk. I don't know anyone who views Dave Reichert an effective advicate on anything in Congress, let alone environmental subjects. He's bee there long enough to have accomplished something. What has he done?

"...amen bloggers..." very nice. May I borrow that one some time?

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Posted by jan

A Burner supporter questioning Reichert's accomplishments and resume? Seriously?

I'd hang my hat on a different peg, if I were you.

Jim - Bloggers aren't idiots. We are keenly aware that our advocacy and biases raises the bar on being taken seriously by those who do not share our opinions.

So when it come to an issue such as the one I've been writing about regarding Dave Reichert's voting record and pattern of voting against bills that he then votes for, the burden of proof and credibility is higher for me, a blogger, than it would be for a reporter.

Obviously.

However, what I have presented regarding Reichert's voting record is pretty much a dry look at the votes - almost painfully dry. I've presented the raw voting record, with links to the roll calls and the bills. I've provided an account, vote by vote, of each bill he's exhibited the voting behavior. Really, my only editorializing has to do with my thoughts as to why he would be suddenly switching his support on these on the final passage vote, and why the media hasn't paid any attention to it. I can only speculate based on the data, and Reichert's own comments as to why, which is why I want reporters to look at this data and ask Reichert directly as I'd expect reporters to do.

Instead, if any ignoring is going on, it would seem that's happening with regards to Reichert's voting record. The so-called liberal media is giving the Republican congressman a pass for some reason in not inquiring further about this. The so-called liberal media is failing to report on the issue so that their readers and viewers can judge for themselves based on the facts - because isn't that what they claim is their role?

I've shown you the data and presented my analysis of it, so I challenge the media and David Postman to show me his data and analysis that allows him to be dismissive of my conclusions, and their impact of Reichert's public perception. I contend that because most everything we know about Dave Reichert we know through what the media tells us, any details they don't report that may be pertinent, result in a distorted perception based on an incomplete picture.

Without bloggers and the biases we have, we may never have known that Dan Rather's case against Bush's military record was tarnished, David Irons beat his mother, Mike Brown's previous experience before running FEMA was as failed head of an Arabian horse sporting group, and so on. Of course all of that is far more sexy than digging into the voting record of a congressman.

Nice to see Dave is utilizing his personal cadre of handpicked leftists to support his bias in the Reichert/ Burner Race. Let's get on the speed dial to Sandeep, or maybe Daniel K can shed some light on.... and the ever popular let's call Goldy for an opinion. What a joke.

Reichert could propose 20 new wilderness areas and Darcy would pounce and say "not enough!" She'd put a federal wilderness area in every backyard! This is just politics.

Dave Reichert cares about protecting the environment. He's clearly shown that. Darcy and Sandeep would be well advised to make this campaign about something else, because they'll lose on that issue.

Oh, and btw, has anyone noticed what a large voice Sandeep has in this campaign? He's smart and savvy, so it makes sense. Every time I hear Darcy say stuff ("like, omg, guys, the new FISA bill, it like so totally sucks, like omg, right?") I just groan... Someone else should run for the dems, like, idk, her bff, Sandeep?

I think Reichert is going to have trouble building his green reputation. The fact that he won't support any real legislation on global warming and votes with Bush and the Republicans on so many procedural votes makes him look kind of insincere.

Burner is someone like Inslee who has a real commitment to these issues.

P.S.
AD: I'm really sorry to see that you feel comfortable using that kind of sexist BS in a public place. Wikipedia tells me that Burner has a double degree in Econ and Computer Science from Harvard. She's not exactly a ditz... But that's the tone from the top that Reichert has set with his sexist ads in '06, so I guess that's what we can expect from his supporters.

Sorry, but anyone who has voted with the Republicans umpteen percent of the time over the last four years can not get a clean green bill of health. One wilderness bill doesn't change four years worth of votes.

"One would think that the new co-sponsors would now make that a tough argument. Why would someone with such sterling environmental credentials like Inslee, or a congressman who has no worry about re-election, like Dicks, agree to co-sponsor something if they thought it was designed only to help Reichert’s re-election prospects?"

David, they'll sponsor it because it is a good bill and it furthers work that they care about. But, again, one bill introduced doesn't make someone a good environmental voter in the congress.

It's one thing to have an opinion while also being intellectually honest, but it's another thing entirely to simply left-handidly bang the drum while shrieding the same Johnny-one-note song.

The 8th CD is still pretty centrist, and Dave Reichert - certainly more liberal than this conservative/libertarian would like - reflects a lot of the views of District voters.

Does The Darcy? That her most strident supporters are the very "amen bloggers" to which Postman refers will give a lot of 8th CD voters - including moderate Democrats I know - pause.

Who will win that seat in November? Beats me...But if it's The Darcy, she's going to have to reach out to ALL the voters in the District, not just the ones who tote water for the netroots/DailyKus/MoveOn/HA Happy Hooligans.

BTW...a lot of conservatives would just as soon Dave left the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area as is. Pretty soon everything will be locked up, unusable by most folks, and effectively the playground of a select few...none of whom will probably vote for him.

The Piper

Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is STILL the right thing.
The bill deserves evaluation on it's legislative merits, not who wrote or sponsored it.
However - just because it MAY be a good bill, does not mean it absolves him of his past sins.
God may offer that kind of forgiveness.
Political constituents? Not so much.

Hey Piper,

At least we can sing the praises of the candidate we back.