Comments on What Reichert Said on Global Warming, and When He Said It

The thing is, Reichert's job right now is to stay on message. But it's hard, because you have to keep track of what you're supposed to say you believe. Reichert, like most people, has been hearing about this global warming business for some time now, but like a lot of people he can't remember if he's supposed to believe in it or not. He screwed up and said the wrong thing. Now his campaign spokesman has to cover his ass. But you won't leave the poor man alone, Josh! You act as if Reichert is supposed to know things or believe things or have any mental activity at all without approval from his operators, AND THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

The Stranger staff flies around on plane a lot. Please consider how this is damaging the earth. The Republicans want everyone to ignore the damage air travel does to the environment.

So please no flying simply for pleasure, and if you must fly do it on a biodiesel fueled plane.

I'm sorry, which of his many lies are we talking about now - I've lost track ...

Is it about money from Alaska, the meaning of the word Truth, the meaning of the word Civil War, the meaning of the word Lobbyist, or are we on another subject?

The confusion isn't accidental.

The only way Republicans can win in Washington is if they don't let people know what they stand for. They'll blow lots of smoke into the air and then when no one can figure out what they stand for, say "The liberal media is just trying to score points while we're fighting to protect America's security."

The message people are supposed to take away from this whole mess is that the Time, PI and Stranger are all lying about Reichert's stands on the issues.

Whatever they are.

Isn't there an old "John Kerry flip-flopping" commercial gathering dust somewhere? Maybe Darcy Burner can dig it out and Photoshop Reichert's face over Kerry's.

Reichert, who probably doesn't believe in Evolution either, has obviously been "evolving" and revolving (he might understand that as "revolving" sounds like "revolver" and, well, he's The Sheriff!) around the issue enough to make anyone's head spin!

It appears that when he said he would be convinced when he is convinced I suspect that really meant when he sees the political backlash turning the tide against him and his handlers tell him to.

Maybe two-part questions are too difficult for Reichert. Maybe next time the Times should just present a simple Yes/No questionnaire.

Circle one (ONLY ONE DAVE):
Global warming exists: Yes / No
Humans are causing global warming: Yes / No
r u horny? r u hard as rock yet?: Yes / No

(Sorry, I don't know how that last one got in there. I'm a recovering meth addict and was abused by a metro bus driver.)

Has anyone not yet noticed the obvious?

Why does Dave need Ms. Cadena to explain or clarify his position?

Can't Dave explain this to the media hiimself? It's not as though he can't do this in a very short amount of time. And they're his words, his statement - surely he knows what he means and can say so with little effort.

Or is it that his own campaign simply doesn't trust Dave to explain it properly?

Lets not forget the reason the US still refuses the Kyoto protocols... as Bush's stance has not changed... the regulations would impact Big Business profit... all those scrubbers, R&D, building modifications, etc. cost money. And Repubs are all about smoothing government out in favor of big business. Every time.

But I caught the Green River Killer!!! What more do you yokels want?

Besides, I'm naked on my webcam! Check it out!!

Reichert's spokeswoman is named Kimberly?! Poor woman...

Now I am confused. Does Reichert exist, or not?

And if Reichert is real, are humans to blame?

Dave Reichert was created fully formed by our Lord 6,000 years ago to fight crime and Democrats.

Any evidence he gestated within a human being was planted there by Lucifer (and Darcy Burner) to deceive us.

John Martin's story exactly matches what the Sierra Club endorsement committee heard with its own ears -- that Dave Reichert thinks thousands of scientists who have spent their lives studying climate may well be wrong.

Our endorsement committee was shocked to hear Reichert's very firm doubts on global warming -- especially since he sits on the House Committee on Science. So, we asked him the question several ways, and gave him the chance to take it back. I also discussed the matter with his staff and sent Dave peer-reviewed articles outlining the scientific global warming consensus. I also asked for the names of scientists who Dave felt presented a legitimate case against global warming, the idea being that it would be easy for us to show him that most climate doubters are either non-experts or funded by oil companies (we never got those names).

In the end, Reichert's position did not shift; it was clear to us that the investigator was not interested in the evidence.

Scott Otterson
Sierra Club Political Chair, Cascade Chapter

Great Irony: Dave Reichert is on the House committee on Science.