Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Tapping the Infinite | Was the 2004 Election Stolen? »

Thursday, June 1, 2006

Reichert on Moderation

Posted by on June 1 at 13:20 PM

One of the big questions hanging over the race for the eastside’s 8th Congressional District is whether the incumbent, freshman Republican Congressman Dave Reichert, is really a moderate.

In an article in this morning’s P-I, Neil Modie writes about how defeating Reichert, whatever descriptor he deserves, “fits into the Democrats’ national strategy” for taking back the House of Representatives, and Modie pegs this article to yesterday’s visit by Congressman Rahm Emanuel, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel was in town to support Reichert’s opponent (and the eastside’s Great Blue Hope) Darcy Burner, and in his article, Modie cites statistics from Emanuel that the Democrats say prove Reichert is not a moderate:

Emanuel, at a news conference with Burner on Wednesday at the Seattle Labor Temple, said Reichert has voted for Bush policies 86 percent of the time and for the Republican agenda 88 percent of the time.

Then, following the daily newspaper dictate of providing an “on the other hand” perspective, Modie quotes Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

“Dave Reichert is a Republican with a very strong and undeniable independent streak. He proved that … again and again with various pieces of environmental legislation. Democrat efforts to paint Dave Reichert as some kind of right-wing extremist are going to be futile because they fly in the face of the facts.

Well, which is it? Is Reichert with Bush and Congressional Republicans more than 85-percent of the time, or is he an “undeniable independent”? Just what are “the facts” here? The P-I article doesn’t answer the question.

There are lots of facts one could look at to resolve this debate: Reichert’s anti-choice, pro-Iraq-War, anti-gay-rights record; his willingeness to have Bush campaign for him here in Washington on June 16; his flip-flopping votes on drilling in ANWR (against it, then for it, then against it); his vote on the Schiavo intervention (against it, his one major “bucking the party” moment); and his votes against stem cell research, in favor of weakening the House Ethics Committee rules, and against national security measures pushed by the 9-11 Commission.

But I suppose one could also argue that there are no “facts” as such in the debate over whether Reichert is a moderate, just varying opinions on what makes a “moderate.” This would be one of those dreaded relativist-style arguments, but hey, let’s indulge it for a minute and take a look at what Reichert himself says about the issue. What’s his opinion?

On May 21, Reichert addressed the “Mainstream Republicans of Washington” at a gathering in Sea-Tac. The event was taped by TVW, and about 50 minutes into the video, Reichert explains his moderate identity, beginning with this statement: “Back in Washington [D.C.], there are lots of games played.”

Reichert goes on to tell an anecdote about a conservative voter who came up to him and complained that Reichert’s moderation was making him consider voting libertarian. As Reichert tells the slightly rambling story:

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.”

Perception is relative (unless you’re a conservative, right?) but it sounds to me as if Reichert may be apologizing here for the “moderate” votes he’s taken — and making this apology in front of a group of “mainstream Republicans,” no less.

That’s where I need to be in a 50-50 district,” Reichert went on to say about his “moderate” votes. Are these the statements of a man with an “undeniable independent streak”? Or are these apologies from a conservative who wishes he didn’t have to cast a few moderate votes every once in a while to hang on to his seat?


CommentsRSS icon

Well, if moderation, simply put, is a willingness to compromise with the other side instead of burning them at the stake, i think Reichert may qualify as a moderately moderate conservative. He's certainly no Jesse Helms. It just may be the wrong angle of attack on this guy. Link him to Bush, yes. Accuse him of not being moderate, i don't see that message working on the folks in the 8th.

The point seems to be that if you are only voting with the Republican agenda 86-88% of the time, you are "undeniably independent".

The "Reichert's moderate" argument usually rests on the number of House votes during which he casts votes like those of his Democratic colleagues. But there's a huge flaw in that methodology -- a great many of those roll call votes are procedural (allowing an amendment to come to the floor, stuff like that) and near-unanimous.

A more meaningful way to look at it is to examine important and contentious roll call votes, the ones where Democrats and Republicans are likely to take differing stances. In those cases, Sheriff Dave is all but indistinguishable from The Hammer, Fat Dennis, and the rest of the wingnuttery running the House. He's voted with DeLay and Hastert 88% of the time on the full range of such bills, and a full 94% of the time on the 35 most important bills since January 2005.

Don't believe me? Well, take a look at this indispensable post from Daniel Kirkdorffer's blog On The Road To 2008. Dan meticulously documents exactly which roll calls he's examining, and his results are crystal clear.

Reichert tosses out the occasional semi-independent vote on a roll call where the GOP vote-count is high enough that he isn't required to toe the wingnut line, but when push comes to shove on the real squeakers, he pushes whichever button The Hammer tells him to.

In order to understand that Dave Reichert is not a moderate you need simply look at the record and particularly at the votes where the majority positions of the parties differed on major votes (you have to ignore the hundreds of procedural votes that everyone is agreeing on).

When you do so you find that he votes with the GOP 94% of the time.

I've written about this extensively at my site and highly recommend you read my in depth look at each vote because this is important to counter the myth that Reichert is a moderate.

Perhaps by wingnut standards, but not by all other standards.

Ah, I see N in Seattle already pointed you my way. Thanks.

"The "Reichert's moderate" argument usually rests on the number of House votes during which he casts votes like those of his Democratic colleagues. But there's a huge flaw in that methodology -- a great many of those roll call votes are procedural (allowing an amendment to come to the floor, stuff like that) and near-unanimous." - N

I hope you are not trying to say by proxy that Emanuel's argument that Reichert voting 86% with GOP leadership is acceptable. Using the old "so and so votes with [insert unsavourable politician here] 99% of the time omgomg" argument is disingenuous in whatever form it comes in.

Moderation is in the eye of the voter and each person has their own opinion of what votes/actions make a moderate. Some people (in my opinion erroneously) thought Jennifer Dunn was a moderate because she was sorta pro-choice. Reichert has shown far more independence thus far than Dunn did, but does that make him a moderate? I think so, but it's just my opinion.

Awww, give Sheriff Dave a break. He's at least as moderate as he is competent.

And a guy like that needs a break.

TMW,

Reichert is not a moderate. In fact, except for issues informed by his church, he's not much of anything. He votes the way his handlers tell him to vote.

Truly, Dave Reichert has got to be one of the WORST public speakers ever to rise to a seat in Congress. The man sounds utterly rambling, disjointed, and nearly incoherent in every speech I've ever heard that was longer than three words. Good Lord, can't the Republicans hire a speechwriter for him? He's awful.

Personally I don't care about how Dave Reichert speaks. I'm sure he can connect in his own special way with a supportive crowd.

Where he is awful is with regards to his voting record. A throwaway vote here and there isn't enough. It's like painting lipstick on a pig.

<a href=http://geocities.com/a3Gsn3CGsbm>daytrade</a>
<a href=></a>
<a href=></a>
<a href=></a>
<a href=></a>

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).