Reichert lipsticks up his own pig.
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 5244, also known as the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights.
Although big banks and President Bush oppose this legislation, Dave Reichert somehow managed to vote for it. For about half a second, I had the following question in mind: "Is this a vote on my behalf as a citizen, or is it an election-cycle attempt to portray himself as the moderate that he most certainly is not?"
Like I said, I wondered for about half a second until I remembered something.
Dave votes like he's told.
Anybody remember this quote from the 2006 election cycle where Dave explained to a room of Republican supporters how sometimes he votes for progressive legislation when his masters tell him to, in order to provide him with political cover for the campaign?
For anyone who thinks this quote is somehow portrayed deceptively by being taken out of context, go check for yourself. Full transcript of the speech is available here courtesy of fellow blogger Goldy. He further explains how the Republican leadership (this was before they lost their majority in the '06 elections) would go so far as to craft entire pieces of legislation whose sole purpose was to give Dave something progressive-sounding he could vote on. Go on, read it for yourself.
And with the Republicans dropping 1.1 million dollars into his campaign in an attempt to save his seat, you know they're interested in providing him with whatever cover they can. So I'm sure the House Minority Whip told him to go ahead and vote Aye and claim to be doing the people's work.
What we have to realize is that for Reichert, Tuesday's vote just doesn't matter. The bill was going to pass the house no matter what he did. If it passes the senate, Bush will veto the bill. If by some miracle it comes back to the house on a veto-override vote before the election, then you can bet Dave will do his Republican footsoldier duty and will vote against it when it actually does matter.
None of which will stop him from claiming during the campaign that he "voted for the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights". Some support.
The thing is, if Darcy Burner were currently occupying the WA-08 seat in the house, I have no doubt she'd have voted Aye too. The difference is I know her motivations would have been to cast that vote in her constituents' interest. She'd have looked at that bill, realized "this bill is totally in line with the values and goals of my Putting the Middle Class First economic plan" and would have voted Aye without hesitation. On that basis, I could trust her vote. I know Darcy's vote wouldn't waver if the vote came up again as a veto override.
But Dave's vote? Sure, it's nice to see Dave or any other Republican vote the way we would wish them to. I just wish I could trust it for a second. But I can't, because his record shows a strong pattern of taking faux-populist votes when they don't matter, only to flip his vote when the chips are really down. This is lip service to his "no, really, I'm a moderate" illusion. It's lipstick on the stinking pig of his record. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Like the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and votes like a duck, it's probably Dave Reichert trying to duck his record in an attempt to save his job."
Although big banks and President Bush oppose this legislation, Dave Reichert somehow managed to vote for it. For about half a second, I had the following question in mind: "Is this a vote on my behalf as a citizen, or is it an election-cycle attempt to portray himself as the moderate that he most certainly is not?"
Like I said, I wondered for about half a second until I remembered something.
Dave votes like he's told.
Anybody remember this quote from the 2006 election cycle where Dave explained to a room of Republican supporters how sometimes he votes for progressive legislation when his masters tell him to, in order to provide him with political cover for the campaign?
'When the leadership comes to me and says 'Dave, we need you to take a vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority, I...I do it.'
Dave Reichert
For anyone who thinks this quote is somehow portrayed deceptively by being taken out of context, go check for yourself. Full transcript of the speech is available here courtesy of fellow blogger Goldy. He further explains how the Republican leadership (this was before they lost their majority in the '06 elections) would go so far as to craft entire pieces of legislation whose sole purpose was to give Dave something progressive-sounding he could vote on. Go on, read it for yourself.
And with the Republicans dropping 1.1 million dollars into his campaign in an attempt to save his seat, you know they're interested in providing him with whatever cover they can. So I'm sure the House Minority Whip told him to go ahead and vote Aye and claim to be doing the people's work.
What we have to realize is that for Reichert, Tuesday's vote just doesn't matter. The bill was going to pass the house no matter what he did. If it passes the senate, Bush will veto the bill. If by some miracle it comes back to the house on a veto-override vote before the election, then you can bet Dave will do his Republican footsoldier duty and will vote against it when it actually does matter.
None of which will stop him from claiming during the campaign that he "voted for the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights". Some support.
The thing is, if Darcy Burner were currently occupying the WA-08 seat in the house, I have no doubt she'd have voted Aye too. The difference is I know her motivations would have been to cast that vote in her constituents' interest. She'd have looked at that bill, realized "this bill is totally in line with the values and goals of my Putting the Middle Class First economic plan" and would have voted Aye without hesitation. On that basis, I could trust her vote. I know Darcy's vote wouldn't waver if the vote came up again as a veto override.
But Dave's vote? Sure, it's nice to see Dave or any other Republican vote the way we would wish them to. I just wish I could trust it for a second. But I can't, because his record shows a strong pattern of taking faux-populist votes when they don't matter, only to flip his vote when the chips are really down. This is lip service to his "no, really, I'm a moderate" illusion. It's lipstick on the stinking pig of his record. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Like the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and votes like a duck, it's probably Dave Reichert trying to duck his record in an attempt to save his job."
# Posted by Jason Black : 9:28 AM
Comments:
Reichert's voting related to this bill is all over the map. Roll call 619, "On Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of H.R. 5244" had Reichert join only two other Republicans to vote in favor of the motion with Democrats. But then when it came to agree to the resolution which would bring the bill up for debate, roll call 620, Reichert join all Republicans to vote against it. Then on roll call 622 Reichert again joined all Republicans in a tactical effort to kill the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act of 2008 on a motion to recommit with instructions. Only after that effort failed did Reichert and a number of other Republicans, surely concerned how their final vote would look to their constituents, flip their vote in favor of the bill.
Reichert's followed this same voting pattern over 30 times in the past two years. You're absolutely right that you just cannot know what he stands for and what his principles are when his voting record is so schizophrenic at best, and so political at worst.
If you'd like to dive into his voting record further I'd recommend you read any number of postings I've written about it, starting perhaps with this one: http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2008/07/truth-behind-reicherts-voting-record.shtml
Post a Comment